# 7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 18, 2014)

```
<p>Gizmodo has published a comparative video test against the EOS 5D Mark III & EOS 70D. It basically solidifies what cinematographers and videographers have been saying since the launch of the EOS 7D Mark II; it’s not a camera for them.</p>
<p><iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/106524090" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" title="Canon 7D Mark II Video Comparison" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>I’m starting to think that Canon is going to be expanding Cinema EOS to the prosumer level, and will not be developing the photographer DSLR for that market. That sort of approach could payoff, as they could focus ergonomics and software to the video segment. This could also lead to people buying multiple EOS mount products. If you can’t get new customers, at least sell more stuff to the people that are already your customer, I’m borrowing from <a href="http://www.bythom.com/" target="_blank">Thom Hogan</a> on that one.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 7D Mark II $1799: <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081808-REG/canon_9128b002_eos_7d_mark_ii.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA7DM2.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NEWZDRG/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00NEWZDRG&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=4IHYPE3ZKJN5VL4X" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-cart/product.asp?pid=7dmarkii" target="_blank">Camera Canada</a></strong></p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://reframe.gizmodo.com/comparing-7d-mark-ii-video-to-its-fellow-canon-dslrs-1636490542" target="_blank">GM</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## SoullessPolack (Sep 18, 2014)

What exactly are we supposed to see here? Or want to see? They all seem pretty identical, the only clue telling otherwise is the slight changes in perspective when switching out cameras. Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?


----------



## Rowbear (Sep 18, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> What exactly are we supposed to see here? Or want to see? They all seem pretty identical, the only clue telling otherwise is the slight changes in perspective when switching out cameras. Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?



+1. I must be dumb...but I don't get it either :/


----------



## SpecialGregg (Sep 18, 2014)

I will say that it seemed like the 7D II was a stop better than the 70D once they got to ISO 6400.


----------



## rs (Sep 18, 2014)

This is my take on it: That brick wall in the background of the first scene has some pretty heavy moire on the 70D; the 7D mk II and 5D mk III seem to be much better on that front. In terms of sharpness, in this test the 5D3 is better than the other two. When it comes to noise, the 7D2 appears to be between the other two, possibly closer to the 5D3.


----------



## mkabi (Sep 18, 2014)

Rowbear said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly are we supposed to see here? Or want to see? They all seem pretty identical, the only clue telling otherwise is the slight changes in perspective when switching out cameras. Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?
> ...



To answer both Rowbear and SoullessPolack... not that I saw the video per se (well not yet, but I have an idea).
The sensors are identical, and even if the sensor is different its still downsampling from the bigger sensor, because its 1080p.

The 70D is cheaper and has swivel touch screen, which makes it more ideal for videographers (in my opinion).
The only thing the 7DII brings to the table in terms of video is the 1080/60p and the ALL-I/IPB/IPB light, which is not enough for someone to upgrade from a 70D. Moreover, there are other options like the G4H, A7s, and now the NX1 that has always had 1080/60p but also have 4K (they all have more to offer than the 7DII). In my opinion, having 4K does not make it a videographer's camera.

A "videographer's camera" is just much more than just 4K... and well 7DII even less than that...
If they had put all the functionalities of what Magic Lantern is offering, without Magic Lantern tampering with it. Then it would be a videographer's camera...


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 18, 2014)

My big question is, what were the recording settings? Was this the clean HDMI out to a quality recorder and then transcoded with a professional package? I assume (given I'm not a pro) that output at 4:2:2 via uncompressed HDMI will probably make a pretty big difference. Otherwise, probably not too big a surprise if they used the same codec to save out from 7d2 & 5d3. Canon probably didn't really change that around.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 18, 2014)

rs said:


> This is my take on it: That brick wall in the background of the first scene has some pretty heavy moire on the 70D; the 7D mk II and 5D mk III seem to be much better on that front. In terms of sharpness, in this test the 5D3 is better than the other two. When it comes to noise, the 7D2 appears to be between the other two, possibly closer to the 5D3.


Well observed. The brick wall in the center have terrible moire only in 70D. The bar code on the bottles also have moire only in 70D. In general, 7D Mark ii seems to have better video than 70D.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 18, 2014)

Basically it looks like they stopped line skipping on the 7D2 so it won't get the nasty aliasing and moire of the 70D or 7D and it will have a good one stop or more SNR advantage over those (due to not line skipping), BUT it's still the same waxy, blurry looking mess. A 5D3 with ML RAW will utterly blow it away for color, detail, editing latitude and usability.

A VERY feeble video effort this late in the game.

It figures that the second Canon realized that they accidentally had something huge with DSLR video the bean counters went and ruined it and crippled it and tries to push people to 1DC and Cxx for anything solid. (thankfully ML saved the 5D3, and so long as you are willing to deal with the troubles of RAW, it makes that a very fine 1080p cam indeed).

They didn't even give it a zoomed video mode! Despite it seemingly reading the entire sensor and having dual digic 6 power! And it being the reach/wildlife body!

Panny GH4 video totally destroys this, so does internal A7S video (never even mind A7S to 4k Ninja Shogun), so does 5D3 with ML RAW, so does SONY 4k camcorder, so most likely will the new new Samsung and anything else arriving soon.

Other than for those for whom DPAF is key, I think they will be very disappointed in the video sales this brings in. A day late and two dollars short.

The AF should be awesome and the fps are great, so to the sports/wildlife shooters it should sell very well though, but they blew it for the video crowd.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 18, 2014)

Horaay finally a test. The video tells a lot by the way. 

First, the 7D mk III is NOT line skipping like the 70D, it's using pixel binning like the 5D mk III, in short, they solved aliasing and moire issues. 

Second, the low light performance is improved by 1.5 to 2 stops, approaching 5D III level. 

Third, no improvent in detail over the 5D mk III. Very similar. 

-First APS-C Canon without moire and aliasing, and with great low light performance, I really like that. The camera is also very nice in the audio features (headphone jack, ability to silently change levels whilst recording), Dual pixel AF with speed/sensitivity adjustment, 1080 slow motion, lack of distortion when using Canon lenses, Etc 

it's just a bit disappointing in resolution just like the 5D mk III was, yet the 5D proved to produce very nice results with post-sharpening and it looked very natural. 

I would have loved higher resoluton, but they seem to have reserved that specific feature for the C100.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 18, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> My big question is, what were the recording settings? Was this the clean HDMI out to a quality recorder and then transcoded with a professional package? I assume (given I'm not a pro) that output at 4:2:2 via uncompressed HDMI will probably make a pretty big difference. Otherwise, probably not too big a surprise if they used the same codec to save out from 7d2 & 5d3. Canon probably didn't really change that around.



No clean HDMI out recording makes barely any difference. I tried it on the 5D3 and it was the same mess, you could barely tell any difference whatsoever, only on frames where the entire frame changed and even then only compared to non-ALLI basically. ML RAW made a HUGE difference though. That's really good quality.

It's not the codec that does the damage, it's something in the de-bayer or later processing stage where they ruin it all. Either DIGIC utterly stinks at debayer and image processing or they chose to use really amateurish large radius sharpening with a ton of DR and use DIGIC badly, or marketing has them apply a blurring filter at the last stage. The proof is in the HDMI uncompressed recording looks almost the same, but the ML RAW recording looks infinitely better.


----------



## IslanderMV (Sep 18, 2014)

I only checked the 7D M2 and 5D3. Look at the Empire State building in the distance and the roof "mushrooms" in the foreground. Some of the air vents look washed out in the 7D M2, the Empire State has no detail in the 5D3.

I could not find Waldo anywhere !


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 18, 2014)

There is barely a difference between the 3- that's what we're supposed to see here. Canon seems not want to compete in the video DSLR market anymore. Sad- it's the end of an era, really 

If they're smart, they'll develop a second line of Cinema EOS DSLRs that are more affordable (and thus more competitive) for filmmakers and videographers.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2014)

Although, on the plus side, since it doesn't line skip, in a year or so, when Magic Lantern comes out for it, it should be able to produce an excellent 1080p so long as you are willing to deal with RAW and Magic Lantern proves possible to write for it. So in a year or so you might get to notch 1080p RAW out of it for less money than a 5D3. So given time it might be an awesome 1080p camera (for those not scared off by RAW video).


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 19, 2014)

Let me be frank. Image quality matters much, much less for videos than for stills. Videos have many more frames, audio, and all of it in time sequence to provide more information than the viewer of a single still can get from a single still frame.

The reason I wanted 4k, even if it was low end 4k, was for stabilization in post, which can cost you 3/4 of your pixels in some cases. The reason I want digital zoom is so I can get more zoom range out of a cheaper and better narrower zoom lens (18-135 versus 18-300, for example).

But, for properly framed shots, this performance is more than acceptable.


----------



## DanielW (Sep 19, 2014)

I will probably buy this camera because of the AF system alone, as by now I already have some respectable collection of almost-in-focus shots of my quick little man. 
On the other hand, were I a videographer, a 7D mark-whatever would never be in my wish list. Horses for courses?
Cheers,
Daniel


----------



## talicoa (Sep 19, 2014)

I'm sorry but to me it looks like they didn't stop down and they have some focus issues. Sure it is soft if you look at elements outside the DOF. Did they use a good lens? I don't know, it doesn't seem like sharpness wasn't maximized here.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Let me be frank. Image quality matters much, much less for videos than for stills. Videos have many more frames, audio, and all of it in time sequence to provide more information than the viewer of a single still can get from a single still frame.
> 
> The reason I wanted 4k, even if it was low end 4k, was for stabilization in post, which can cost you 3/4 of your pixels in some cases. The reason I want digital zoom is so I can get more zoom range out of a cheaper and better narrower zoom lens (18-135 versus 18-300, for example).
> 
> But, for properly framed shots, this performance is more than acceptable.



That all depends. The difference in detail and quality between ML RAW 5D3 video and regular 5D3 video is pretty intense to me. And A7S 4k video, wow, it's like looking out a window. The difference is pretty darn easy to see. Easier to see than most web stills image differences.

Of course it also depends a bit what you are shooting. Nature/scenics footage it probably matters than for a scripted story.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 19, 2014)

Watching a documentary in a true large format IMAX theater is impressive visually. For most everything else, whether it's on the big screen or on my SDTV makes essentially no difference to me.

I find the difference between ML raw video and native 5D3 video to be entirely immaterial.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Watching a documentary in a true large format IMAX theater is impressive visually. For most everything else, whether it's on the big screen or on my SDTV makes essentially no difference to me.
> 
> I find the difference between ML raw video and native 5D3 video to be entirely immaterial.



Wow.

No difference seen in detail and texture between waxy 5D3 native video and richly textured ML RAW and no difference in blown highlights and crushed black detail between the two?

No difference between 4k and 1080i and 480i even for nature?

I guess people sure see things differently. To me the difference is almost unimagineably great.

In all seriousness are you sure you are not slightly near sighted and perhaps just not seeing any resolution and detail differences so the only thing that impresses you is raw screen size or when something is blown up soooo large that you can finally start to see fine details?


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Sep 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Watching a documentary in a true large format IMAX theater is impressive visually. For most everything else, whether it's on the big screen or on my SDTV makes essentially no difference to me.
> ...



Im baffled by "photographers" who care so much about the quality of their still pictures but don't appreciate the quality of moving pictures.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 19, 2014)

Oh I see the differences, and I have 20/13 vision once corrected. I just find those differences mostly immaterial to the use or enjoyment of video. Not so with stills.

I was just looking at some video I shot last weekend. It was of a favorite subject of mine, aiplanes. I had some shot at 500mm and some at 50mm. Really, the difference wasn't a big deal. I could clearly see what was going on with both, and the what was going on part is what mattered, not the imagery itself.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 19, 2014)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Well, that's probably me. I stopped going to the movies years ago and prefer to watch them at home on my CRT TV. You know why? The audio quality at most theaters is horrible, and that annoys me far more than a small, low resolution screen. The audio quality I have at home is far superior to that at most theaters.


----------



## Otara (Sep 19, 2014)

The 7D II is similar to the 7D in that it has 2 Digic processors, which delayed magic lantern work on it for some time, and has caused ongoing problems with its development.

I wouldnt put too much hope on that being the answer at this stage, particularly given most work tends to be focussed on the 5D series anyway.


----------



## sjschall (Sep 19, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> ...
> -First APS-C Canon without moire and aliasing, and with great low light performance, I really like that. The camera is also very nice in the audio features (headphone jack, ability to silently change levels whilst recording), Dual pixel AF with speed/sensitivity adjustment, 1080 slow motion, lack of distortion when using Canon lenses, Etc
> ...



I agree with this sentiment. Everyone keeps hating on the video features but this is huge. I love my Mark III for its lack of moire and headphone jack, now I can get that in a crop body. I know I know, GH4 this and A7s that, but for me it's about the package. I don't want to dink around with speed boosters, m4/3 lenses, and giving up Canon glass. I think the 5D III and 7D II are and will be killer video machines for a large range of shooters.


----------



## talicoa (Sep 19, 2014)

I'm not in the market right now for another body, but I wouldn't be scared off by this level of image quality. It will be fine. But then I like a shallower depth of field and sometimes you don't want things too sharp(People). The reality is that my post production workflow can't really handle 4K so I wouldn't miss it. 
Magic lantern RAW is also not an option I would be waiting for. I shot one video that was about 3 minutes long. It turned into 40GB of files that, I could work magic on, but everything was so slow, it took me two days to process everything. 
It was mentioned before that using 4K would be a benefit for image stabilization. Yes and no. Maybe it would be better for people who shoot at fast shutter speeds. I try to shoot at 1/50th for my 24FPS look. If you jack that up to high you get a weird feel to it. If you do shoot at 1/50th and there is a lot of motion that needs to be stabilized, you won't really have a useable stabilized photo either. You get too much blur from the fact that the shutter speed is so slow.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 19, 2014)

sjschall said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The 7DII doesn't add enough to what the 5DIII already does. For that reason, I would go for the A7s with adapters. The A7s adds amazing low light video, focus aids, 4K with recorder, and it's also a small light body when needed. So for video a 5DIII / A7s combo is better than 5DIII / 7DII, IMO


----------



## aclectasis (Sep 19, 2014)

Rowbear said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly are we supposed to see here? Or want to see? They all seem pretty identical, the only clue telling otherwise is the slight changes in perspective when switching out cameras. Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?
> ...


Are you guys for real? The noise performance was a joke compared to the 5d III. Not that I guess we should have expected it to be BETTER, but eh. Also, the 7d seemed less sharp on the bottlecaps but for some reason it seems like focus error more than the camera.

It's early days and I'm interested in seeing more tests from more people, but as a videographer, I was really hoping more would change in 5 years.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 19, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Oh I see the differences, and I have 20/13 vision once corrected. I just find those differences mostly immaterial to the use or enjoyment of video. Not so with stills.
> 
> I was just looking at some video I shot last weekend. It was of a favorite subject of mine, aiplanes. I had some shot at 500mm and some at 50mm. Really, the difference wasn't a big deal. I could clearly see what was going on with both, and the what was going on part is what mattered, not the imagery itself.



Actually, it is the same with stills. Subject matter is always king, but image quality is important for the perfect shot. The same thing applies to video. 

A big part of the problem is that people have been conditioned by TV and movies to overlook low image quality and focus of the subject matter instead. They call it "filmic" and think that it is natural, but it is no more natural than a still taken with an old Kodac Instamatic. You are an enthusiast photographer, so you are a stickler for IQ in your cameras, and would never accept a picture taken by an Instamatic, even though the subject matter may be correctly framed. Why do you think it should be different for video, just because video is not your medium?

There are those of us who do care about this stuff.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 19, 2014)

And for what it is worth, the 7D2 footage is exactly what I would have expected from a Canon DSLR using a Digic 6 processor. 

I was hoping that Canon would use the opportunity to compete with other cameras that have appeared over the last year, but as soon as I saw the specs on the thing I knew what the footage would look like and knew that it would be unacceptable.

So, I was disappointed, but at least it has made the decision to move on from Canon equipment easier.


----------



## Khnnielsen (Sep 19, 2014)

Here is my take on Canon and their video DSLR.

If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.

The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.
We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.

If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.

On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .


----------



## dmosier (Sep 19, 2014)

Khnnielsen said:


> Here is my take on Canon and their video DSLR.
> 
> If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.
> 
> ...



The thing is, the market for video DSLRs and the market for the Cinema EOS cameras are not the same market. They never were. A dude may stretch his wallet to get a 5D to shoot some short films, but there was no way that guy was ever going to pony up $15 grand for a C300. 

Literally all Canon had to do to own the micro budget marketplace was to take all of the existing components of a 5D and put them into a more video-centric ergonomic body, and throw in the Magic Lantern video features as software. That's it. That's what people have been begging Canon for these last four or five years. They didn't have to create new sensors or even 4k recording, any of that. But they never built it. Instead they came out with cameras that had most of those features but priced $10k above people's reach, so only actual production companies could afford it.

Now, even if Canon did come out with a Cinema 5D tomorrow, it would be too late. The tech has moved way beyond it, way beyond what even the Cinema EOS line is capable of, and for far less money. There isn't a single thing that the 5D or 7DII can do with video that isn't done better by somebody else, for the same price or less.

That's the bottom line.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 19, 2014)

dmosier said:


> Khnnielsen said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.
> ...


At this time Canon C100 costs $ 4,999. It seems an adequate price for the advantages over 5D Mark iii.
C100 has really low cost, compared to traditional competitors like Sony HDW-F900 which costs $ 80,000 (body only), and also does not record 4K, even with external recorder.


----------



## mps (Sep 19, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> .... Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?



YES! Propper audio inputs, peaking, zebra, rec709, clog,...... and the list goes on and on.

also: "this could also lead to people buying multiple EOS mount products" - no way. it leads people to buy a gh4, an a7s...... but canon? no, i highly doubt people will still buy canon bodies. they are lightyears behind what the competition is offering.... and seeing a prototype speedbooster from metabones offering an aperture ring to control the ef-lenses (german link: http://www.slashcam.de/news/single/Metabones-EF-Adapter-mit-aktivem-Blendenring-gesic-11654.html) demolishes the last reason to stay with canon: cause you invested heavily in canon glass....


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 19, 2014)

Thank goodness that I'm a photographer!

All due respect for the videographers out there, I'm delighted Canon did not turn this into the 'video camera that does stills'.

And let's consider the design of the camera. No touch screen, rugged body, no 4K consideration...it's pretty much telling me that Canon's primary aim to this camera was quality stills at high speed. 

Right up my alley. I've put my camera on video twice in almost 4 years and there's no recorded video from my camera on my pc.

Let's celebrate the Canon 7Dii for what it is, not what we individually wanted it to be. 

Next month there is another photography trade show. Maybe a Canon EOC 7Dii C is released with every trick you folks wanted at $1000 more. 

I'm just wondering how many of us who wanted a stills camera, would've purchased a tricked out, videographer's dream Canon 7Dii at $2799.


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 19, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I'm just wondering how many of us who wanted a stills camera, would've purchased a tricked out, videographer's dream Canon 7Dii at $2799.


That price point would have probably moved me to a FF camera, probably the 5D Mk III.


----------



## Khnnielsen (Sep 19, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> dmosier said:
> 
> 
> > Khnnielsen said:
> ...



Sorry, I know it is off topic, but the C100 and the Sony HDW-F900 do not compete in the same part of the market. It would more precise to compare the C100 to something like the Sony NEX-EA50M that will cost $2700.


----------



## Northstar (Sep 19, 2014)

It's pretty obvious that the 7D2 is for fast action stills shooters first and foremost...not cinematographers.

With that said, this camera finally gives fast action still shooters the ability to capture video (that isn't constantly out of focus) using the dual pixel AF capabilities. 

This camera is great for sport/action photographers that want to add some quality video to their coverage of a game/event....and this is all it's supposed to be. Go elsewhere if you're a dedicated video shooter.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 19, 2014)

Northstar said:


> It's pretty obvious that the 7D2 is for fast action stills shooters first and foremost...not cinematographers.
> 
> With that said, this camera finally gives fast action still shooters the ability to capture video (that isn't constantly out of focus) using the dual pixel AF capabilities.
> 
> This camera is great for sport/action photographers that want to add some quality video to their coverage of a game/event....and this is all it's supposed to be. Go elsewhere if you're a dedicated video shooter.



And if they'd included, or especially added to the 3x digital video crop mode that's already in the 70D, it would have been even better for sports and wildlife videos.

The lack of it has me considering whether I want this camera for the speed and focusing or the 70D for its video features and WiFi (which I'd use for camera control).


----------



## Tugela (Sep 19, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Thank goodness that I'm a photographer!
> 
> All due respect for the videographers out there, I'm delighted Canon did not turn this into the 'video camera that does stills'.
> 
> ...



Adding advanced video features would have added very little to the cost and taken away nothing from stills capabilities, so there is no legitimate reason for it not to be there.

It is possible that Canon think that maybe they can get people to buy two separate cameras, and therefore get revenue from that customer twice, but I doubt it is going to work if that is their plan. The people who want both functions want cameras that can do both, they don't want to carry two completely separate kits around with them. Professionals might, but consumers and prosumers generally will not. And since cameras such as the 5 and 7 series are marketed at the consumer/prosumers, Canon are basically shooting themselves in the foot and literally handing market share (for those who want both functions) over to competitors like Panasonic, Sony and Samsung. And make no mistake, those companies are going to use the opportunity to get their foot in the door, and once that foot is in, the rest of the body is sure to follow. 

Canon are being very short sighted if that is what their strategy is. What I found absolutely astounding is that not so long ago some of their executives were interviewed and claimed that they understood the importance of video and that it would play a critical role in future products. But now that the future products are here it is clear that very little has changed in what they are actually delivering. Was that guy munching too many lotus leaves or something?? Either their management is completely out to lunch or they are straight up misleading people. There is a huge disconnect between what they are saying and what they are doing.

As a long time Canon owner, both in stills and camcorders, I find their general attitude regarding video to be very depressing. I no longer have confidence that they can deliver in the future. I recently bought a Sony RX100M3 because I needed a pocket camera for a special trip, and was VERY impressed by the integration of high quality stills and video function in that camera. It has issues of course, but understandable in such a small package. That camera is a marvel of modern technology. Looking at Sony's other products it is clear that they have a plan for the future. They are not competing in the high end stills market but they sure as hell have every other consumer/prosumer market area solidly covered. This is what Canon SHOULD be doing as a market leader, but other than in the professional market they are failing miserably. And even in the professional video market they appear to be living off past glory - unless they have something new coming real soon their competitors are going to leave them in the dust in that arena as well.


----------



## Northstar (Sep 19, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > It's pretty obvious that the 7D2 is for fast action stills shooters first and foremost...not cinematographers.
> ...



3X crop mode would have been nice for sports..you're right.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 19, 2014)

What are you talking about? The 7D mk II took a significant leap in image quality over the 7D. It eliminated moire and aliasing, and has 1.5 to 2 stops increase in high-ISO performance. 

It's now the leader in video image quality compared to the entire competition under 5000$ C100/FS100 league, markedly in low-light performance (D7100, K3, A6000).

The only aspect of the image that is not better than the competition is resolution. While it's similar to the D7100/A6000/K3/5D it is markedly worse than the GH4. If resolution is your main concern the GH4 is better at that specific aspect, yet the 7D mk II is much better in colours, lowlight performance, dynamic range, dof control (s35 vs m43s), AF, and many others.

The 7D mk II seems like a great videography camera only falling short of the competition in resolution, and while resolution is important, it's not everything.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 19, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> What are you talking about? The 7D mk II took a significant leap in image quality over the 7D. It eliminated moire and aliasing, and has 1.5 to 2 stops increase in high-ISO performance.
> 
> It's now the leader in video image quality compared to the entire competition under 5000$ C100/FS100 league, markedly in low-light performance (D7100, K3, A6000).
> 
> ...



Compared to what? The original 7D?

I seriously doubt that anyone is going to buy the 7D2 as a serious hybrid video shooter over competing products. That is not to say that people won't use it for that purpose because they happen to have the camera, but these days no one who is informed is going to buy one if that application is part of their purchasing criteria. No one.

Perhaps people will be able to do a ML hack on it to get performance out if it that should have been included at stock. But relying on some nerd living in his mom's basement to write some hack to get reasonable video performance is one hell of a business plan for a camera that costs this much. I expect that functionality to already be in the camera when I buy it.

The fact that ML even exists and elicits so much interest in the enthusiast community should tell you something, a message Canon evidently is not getting.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

Tugela said:


> I seriously doubt that anyone is going to buy the 7D2 as a serious hybrid video shooter over competing products. That is not to say that people won't use it for that purpose because they happen to have the camera, but these days no one who is informed is going to buy one if that application is part of their purchasing criteria. No one.



Think so, huh?

Just had a pro videographer here for a paid shoot. He came from out-of state with tens of thousands of dollars in camera equipment, lights, props, etc. He was here for a full week shoot with, guess what? A 7D. He had, I'd say, 25-30 lenses for the 7D, not to mention tons and tons of video accessories for it (screens, recorders, rails, external batteries, etc.). He also uses 5Ds, but was using the 7D that week because the 5Ds were off at Canon.

I really can't envision a guy like that switching systems. Asked him, and he really had no interest whatsoever in even looking at other manufacturers.


----------



## skp (Sep 20, 2014)

I want to speak up against the whole "go buy a camcorder" sentiment that I keep seeing popping up on here, but first a few caveats:

1) I started investing in Canon DSLR equipment primarily for video, but a side effect of that is that it has really led me to get way more into shooting stills.
2) I think the Canon 7D MkII is a great camera for it's obviously intended purpose: sports and wildlife. I'm seriously considering buying it as a stills body for wildlife.

The 7D mkII is also certainly an improvement in terms of video, but it's not what I was hoping for. That said, I'm not going to go buy a camcorder for video because I don't know if any of you noticed, but the 5DII video revolution didn't just impact photographers, it changed the market for video equipment under $10,000.

Right now my non-DSLR choices as a video shooter are as follows: cheap 1/4" single-sensor handycams that go for just a few hundred dollars, "prosumer" video cameras between $1500-$5000, and then from there I can go up into more professional 1/3" broadcast cameras or the newer digital cinema lines like Canon's Cinema EOS line.

The problem is that the "prosumer" segment of video cameras has kind of fallen apart since the introduction of DSLRs. Lately the trend has been toward putting consumer level AVCHD and 1/4" sensors into bigger more ergonomic bodies.

DSLRs filled in a nice middle option between handycams and professional broadcast equipment. I can't spend $10,000 on a complete system, but I don't want to settle for a Vixia camcorder (which I also own, and IMO has terrible optics).

Again, I'm not knocking the 7DII. I'll probably buy one, but I'm just worried about the signal it is sending that Canon doesn't seem to be interesting in making a product for that middle part of the market that they were originally responsible for completely upending with the 5DII.

BTW, on a different tangent, I also want to reiterate that I got into Canon DSLR gear as a video shooter, but I just recently bought a new 600EX RT flash and a trigger. If you're paying attention Canon, you definitely can money off us budget video shooters by keeping us from going to Sony.


----------



## jrista (Sep 20, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> What exactly are we supposed to see here? Or want to see? They all seem pretty identical, the only clue telling otherwise is the slight changes in perspective when switching out cameras. Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?



There is a lot more noise in the 7D II and 70D clips than the 5D III clips. The 7D II demonstrates less noise than the 70D until you get up into the much higher ISOs, probably thanks to DIGIC 6. 

The easiest way to see the difference is look at the background behind the bottles...on the crop cameras, you can see artifacts and noise jumping around. On the FF camera, it's much cleaner, even at higher ISO.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 20, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> It's [7d mk II] now the leader in video image quality compared to the entire competition under 5000$ C100/FS100 league, markedly in low-light performance (D7100, K3, A6000).



Are you trolling?

The 7d mk II is at the BOTTOM compared to the competition, and it just came out. The 7d has mushy, detail-less footage like the rest of the Canon DSLRs. The A7s, GH4, A600, A5100, Black Magic Pocket Cam...they all destroy this brand new camera. Yes, it might have better ISO performance, but who cares when the image looks like crap anyway. And what about focus peaking, zebras, c-log, etc? They're all absent, and I'm so over depending on Magic Lantern to make Canon's viable for video.

Unless Canon has something up its sleeve for an affordable Cinema EOS cam, they're letting all their budget-minded filmmakers go to other brands. Tugela said it perfect:



Tugela said:


> It is possible that Canon think that maybe they can get people to buy two separate cameras, and therefore get revenue from that customer twice, but I doubt it is going to work if that is their plan. The people who want both functions want cameras that can do both, they don't want to carry two completely separate kits around with them. Professionals might, but consumers and prosumers generally will not. And since cameras such as the 5 and 7 series are marketed at the consumer/prosumers, Canon are basically shooting themselves in the foot and literally handing market share (for those who want both functions) over to competitors like Panasonic, Sony and Samsung. And make no mistake, those companies are going to use the opportunity to get their foot in the door, and once that foot is in, the rest of the body is sure to follow.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 20, 2014)

dmosier said:


> Khnnielsen said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my take on Canon and their video DSLR.
> ...



This. +1


----------

