Canon EOS 7D
Although I’ve been singing the praises of the Mamiya 7 II rangefinder film camera and Mamiya 7 II lenses to friends and colleagues alike, let’s face it: There are occasions when the sheer convenience of digital is impossible to match in analog, especially if you prefer to handhold your camera and plan to shoot under a variety of lighting conditions. Film cameras, alas, do not permit the latitude that digital cameras do when it comes to the vagaries of light. If you load your camera with the world’s best transparency film—Fujichrome Velvia 50—you are stuck shooting at an ISO of 50, which is fine if you’re taking pictures in sunlight or using studio flash, but not so fine if you’re shooting in overcast or by natural or artificial light indoors. To shoot in poor light, you need a much faster film or, sigh, a tripod. Unfortunately, on a film camera you can’t switch from a slow film to a fast film in the middle of a roll. Oh, you could use two identical camera bodies, one loaded with Velvia 50 and the other with a high-speed transparency film like Fuji Provia 400 or an even higher-speed negative film like Fujicolor 800, but another camera body costs a lot of money. It also means adding substantial weight to your kit. And, of course, while you’re switching cameras that shot you want to take might up and vanish.
Digital cameras don’t have this problem. They can switch speeds at the press of a shutter release button (assuming you’re in some kind of AUTO program mode) or at the turn of an ISO dial.
Come into a coffee shop after taking pictures like the one above on a bright day, and want to snap a candid like the one below of one of the customers browsing through some books?
CANNOT be done with my Mamiya 7 II. Even if the camera were mounted on a tripod, the exposure time would be way too long with Velvia 50 to permit such a candid shot. It might easily be too long to capture on Provia 400, too.
Oh, you could buy a versatile, lightweight point-and-shooter, for these occasions, like the Canon G10 I’ve been using for the last couple of years. Only the G10 and other point-and-shooters aren’t particularly good in low light. They shine in bright light. Indoors, their tiny pixel-packed sensors are simply overwhelmed by chroma and luminance noise at high ISOs, turning images into grainy, blotchy, poorly resolved messes.
All of which brings me to Canon’s latest APS-C wonder—the 18mp, 8fps (yes, you're reading that right) EOS 7D. You can read thoughtful professional reviews of this camera at www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/ or www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/index.shtml, among many other sites. The 7D is quite the rage at the moment. I have nothing to add to the pros’ encomiums, save to say that I agree completely that this is a great second camera—for digital-shooters or for old analog hounds like me. It is lightweight, easy to handhold, and a snap to use; its controls are thoughtfully laid-out and intuitive (even to a film-camera guy like me); it is relatively inexpensive; it comes with excellent software and a very good kit lens (Ken Rockwell’s favorite all-purpose Canon zoom); and best of all it takes marvelous pictures, even in very low light. Below is a candid taken, handheld, at 3200 ISO, with light coming from overhead fixtures, a distant front window, and the computer screen in front of the subject. This is astonishingly low noise and high resolution for an APS-C-sensor camera, IMO.
To tantalize you further, in addition to shooting at 8 frames-per-second (making it superb for action photography) and that 18mp sensor, tthe EOS 7D has a full-frame viewfinder (yep, 100% of what you see through the lens), dual 14-bit processors, extinction resolution that approaches 4000 lph in DP Review's measurements for extremely fine detail (or, at least, the impression of same), and an ISO range that goes as high as 12,800 (although I wouldn't be taking pix up there or much above ISO 3200, save in a pinch).
I’ve been putting the 7D through its paces over the last week, shooting at a variety of speeds in everything from bright daylight to winter nights. Go to jlvalin.zenfolio.com/p479073022 to see the results and, then, by all means go to your Canon dealer and try this little wonder out. I would be surprised if you, too, weren’t impressed with all this camera can do.
Addendum 12.14.09. For you pixel-peepers out there, I've appended some crops to the Zenfolio site, including the one below. First the pic as taken and then a 1:1 crop. Both pix were converted to TIFFs in Canon's Digital Photo Professional software and then further tweaked in Lightroom.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
Hi JV -
I just picked up a 7D two days ago and am smiling to no end even with the low cost kit zoom lens. I plan to break the bank before the CES show and get an "L" series lens & the 580EXII flash.
Be sure to check out http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ for another great resource for Canon reviews.
See you at the CES show...
Regards-
Dan E.
Excellent shots! Really like your subject matter (great tones and textures in each).
Thank you.
Hi JV,
We just used a 7D on a music video shoot using its 1920x1080 HD video capabilities. Normally we use a RED ONE with either 16mm or 35mm lenses, but we were really impressed with the 7D's image quality and the ease of use. We also rented a 5D MkII but found the 7D to be more than adequate. If the artist is happy, I'll try and post some images from the shoot once they've been graded.
Nice shots, JV.
I would love to see your video, niner! Post sample pix if possible.
Jon
JV:
What a virtually mint condition with Zeiss Ikon Contarex Super camera be worth today? Original leather case and accessories. Purchased by my father in New York City in 1965/66. I can supply pix. Digital, er, of course!
You would not believe the condition of this camera.
Lovely photos, JV. Thanks for turning us on to the EOS 7D.
Amandela77
Thank you, Amandela.
Starsailor,
There are three Zeiss Ikon Contarex Supers on eBay right now, a "miint" one with a 2.0 Planar going for $1389, another with 2.0 Planar for $1888, and a third with a 2.0 Distagon 35mm for $2299. None of these is likely in the condition that your dad's camera is in (from the way you've described it). Plus you have an original case and accessories. You may possess a collectible camera that's worth a good deal of money. I would talk to an expert--someone from Tamarkin (http://www.tamarkin.com/)--to determine a reasonable price at auction.
JV
Thanks for the tip! I not over selling the condition. It is remarkable. And dad used it quite a bit. Complained bitterly about the weight!
I thought about keeping it but when I see the digipics you and others take.....
Funny you mention the Zeiss Ikon. I've got an old Contarex, and it has film cartridges that allow you to swap films halfway through. You basically load the film in a cartridge, snap the cartridge on the camera, remove the steel plate that covers the exposed part and start taking pictures. When you want to remove the film, you insert the steel plate back and remove the cartridge. There are dial indicators on the cartridge body that you set to identify the type of film used inside and its speed. Simple, but VERY handy.
You are correct sir. Very unique and handy. This camera is a gorgeous piece of machinery.
Would that the 7 II allowed you to switch films in mid-roll! What a convenience!
I understand from a Director of Photography friend that the 7D's sensor is almost the same size as a frame of 35mm film. This past summer I worked on a feature film which was shot entirely with three 5D MkII's. We had a Nikon, and Zeiss lens package, and the DP had shot a lot of commercials in Europe with the camera and was very experienced with using filtration to get a "film" look. The dailies were spectacular, besting anything I've seen shot with the Red One. I'm not supposed to say what the film was, however I can say that there is an excellent possibility that if you are attending a certain film festival in the south of France in June you will get a chance to see it.
The fact is there's pros and cons relative to both. Just got back from another music video shoot using the RED ONE. Last week we used the 7D (mostly) and the 5D MkII (for some shots where the chip allowed greater depth of field). The differences are pretty significant, and impact production in different ways.
I agree the dailies generated by the RED are pretty flat looking - uninspired - but for a crew who's used to working with a larger camera to achieve in-camera effects via physically man-handling the camera (as we did today) and focus-pulling the "right" way, it's simply much more familiar and therefore, there's less guess-work and shots can be nailed much quicker. We wrapped the entire shoot in less than eight hours. The physical size of the 7D and 5D mean the DOP, focus-puller and grips have to make adjustments in regard to their physical relationship and the way they handle the camera, and when using the Canon lenses, adjust they way they pull focus. Things are less intuitive, simply by nature of the fact that you have to unlearn certain things that have become second nature, requiring more set-up time (the Canon lenses do not respond to light the same way as say, the Cooke zoom or Zeiss primes we had today) and often, more takes.
Of course, using the RED meant we had twice as much gear this time, requiring more people, and more transport, etc, etc. Where we had only 7 crew for the 7D, we had 11 for the RED.
And though the dailies we pulled from the 7D and 5D MkII did look good, the editor was far less impressed, and matching shots in post for a consistent feel took more work. Of course, it's hard to say whether this was down to him simply being more familiar with footage shot conventionally, or that the images generated by the Canon's inherently need more tweaking to come up to an "accepted standard". Time will tell.
While there's no doubt that the 7D and 5D MkII are increasingly becoming valuable tools within the industry, to suggest they're "better" than something like the RED (although I know you're not) simply because the dailies look better is less than half the story.
Still, the brave new world of DSLR HD video is here, and given it adds another bow to the film-maker's quiver can surely only be a good thing.
This is fascinating, Larry and Niner! DP Review and other webzines had very good things to say about the 7D's 1080p video capabilities, but I had no idea that the 7D and 5D Mk II were being used on a professional level.
Can I ask if the Canon lenses you refer to, Niner, are the sort of commercial lenses that photographers use for stills? Or are they Canon video lenses, one of which--a zoom that cost $20k--I once used on a JVC ENG camera? (The Canon video zoom was very good, though I kinda doubt it was the same quality as a Cooke or Zeiss prime)
Jon
Hi Jon,
We use a couple of camera hire places, who stock most of the usual suspects (Arri D-21, Phantom HD, Genesis, Arri 235, RED, etc). Given the shrinking budgets of music videos and commercials the industry has experienced in the last 18 months, we've been curious as to the possibilities offered by HD video capture via the DSLR format.
The last video was very much a guerilla-style shoot, so we thought we'd try both the 5D MkII and the 7D. While not available from commercial camera hire places here (yet), we simply rented them off colleagues and put them through their paces. As Ilad mentions above, the 5D MkII has been used before for music videos, commercials and feature films by many pros and enthusiasts alike - in our case, to test the viability of the format in commercial situations.
While most of the web chatter related to their use has been overwhelmingly positive, there are still a number of downsides - both in production and post-production (the 5D Mk II's 30fps capture the most irksome). Which is to say, the "results" as posted as completed videos on blogs don't necessarily represent the often difficult process required to get there.
Like I say above, there's no free lunch. Each format (film, HD cine-cameras, HD DSLR's) has its compromises, but then, that won't be a surprise to anyone in the audiophile community.
But in answer to your question, yes, we used the type of standard zooms Canon provide with the 7D and 5D (I can't for the life of me remember which ones). How much better they might perform with other lenses is as yet untested as far as I'm aware (can anyone weigh in on this?), but still doesn't address the unorthodox way in which puling focus has to occur. Asking someone who's spent twenty years pulling focus "this way" to suddenly start pulling focus "that way" is more of an issue than you might think.
Niner,
For what it's worth, Zeiss makes prime lenses in Canon mounts for still photography. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=274&N=4293919666+4291107378+4294... for the lineup. However, I doubt that these commercial lenses are the same quality that you are used to (although these Zeiss primes are manual focus, not auto-focus, lenses, so focus-pulling would probably be much more similar to what you guys are used to). It seems to me that it would be relatively easy to find or fabricate adaptors that would allow you to use film-quality Cooke or Zeiss lenses on Canon-mount SLRs. I know, for instance, that Hassleblad lenses (which used to be made by Zeiss and are currently made, I think, by Schneider) can be used on Canon EOS cameras via an adaptor (for which, see http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html).
Jon
Canon has created a proficient prosumer digital SLR with the 7D, sporting excellent specifications and performance such as burst shooting speed and HD movie recording.
The small footprint of the D5 MkII and it's accessories is a great advantage if you are shooting in public places where you do not have a lot of control. In Italy we did some guerilla style shooting with the 5D MkII, including entire scene in a famous church. The camera operator removed the matte box and follow focus so the camera looked like a 35mm still camera, and with the crew dressed as tourists we shot hand held using available light. The cast was radio miked and the sound mixer had the mixing console in a shoulder bag.
Another impressive thing about the 5D MkII, was in-camera effects we were able to create, including shooting a number scenes day-for-night. We did extensive tests in pre-production, and were able to shoot certain night exterior scenes at magic hour rather than shooting night-for-night. We had about a 45 minute window for magic hour at that time of year.
I should also mention that we did not use any zoom lenses, only primes.
Hi Jonathan,
You should try the 5DMk2...MUCH better. Bigger sensor, full frame rather than "Academy Size", and deeper, richer tones with better low light performance. I use it with my Leica lenses, in particular my 28-90 Asph zoom - gorgeous, filmic results. Since I shoot documentaries and film concerts [over 200+ filmed in HD so far with 70% using Stellavox SM8 to record with], it adds a "Hi-End" look to the filmed result.
You can view some examples of my concerts filmed at www.reel2reel.tv
We live in exciting times - you can use a 5D and even the new 1D to make real 24p Cinema-release movies. Add a very serious sound recording setup [you can read about mine at www.metaxas.com] and these WILL be the Mercury Recordings equivalent in Hi-End audio.
rgds
Kostas Metaxas
Kostas,
I'm sure the full-frame 5DMKII with a Leitz 28-90 aspherical has higher resolution and better low-light performance than the APS-C 7D with a kit lens (although, based on my limited experience and that of the pro reviewers who've reviewed both cameras, I wouldn't sell the 7D TOO short of the 5D). OTOH, my Mamiya 7 II 6x7 film camera kills the 5D Mk II/Leitz! You'll remember that I said the 7D makes a great SECOND camera. It's perfect for my needs, but then I'm not a film maker, nor am I a full-time digital still photographer.
I look forward to seeing your films!
JV
What does a review of a new digital SLR go to do with The Absolute Sound? Are you going to review toasters and post them here next.
I'm very fond of the Kitchen Aid toaster, but, no, I won't be posting a review.
This is a blog, rummy. I write about things that are interesting to me and to TAS readers--mostly stereo-related, of course. But it has been my experience that a LOT of audiophiles are also interested in photography. (The two seem to go together.) You might recall that Pearson had an interest in photography. Indeed, some of the language we use to describe audio is adapted from photography (i.e., grain, density of color, edge sharpness, etc.). In any event, no one is making you read my blog. If you come across a subject that doesn't interest you, just pass it by.
Hi JV:
Always wondered, unless I missed it somehow... I assume all your cables are single ended....but you certainly have a fully balanced components in your reference system....any reason why you roll that way?
I use both balanced and unbalanced cables, uh, Unbalanced. It depends on the components and how they sound connected either way.
Thanks. How do you normally connect the ARC Ref5 and 610's? How did you connect the Soulution gear? To give you a quick chuckle, someone on the "other board" called it "overpriced sonic dreck".
I generally use balanced cables with both the ARC and Soulution gear.
Thank you JV. I always wondered why audiophile speakers don't accept XLR jacks if it really is a superior mode of connection. Maybe I've had too much egg nog(gen).
You're welcome, Unbal. I'm kinda at a loss as to what any of this has to do with the Canon EOS 7D, however.
Lovely photos. great shots.
SEO Cost
Thank you, SEO.
The small footprint of the D5 MkII and it's accessories is a great advantage if you are shooting in public places where you do not have a lot of control. In Italy we did some guerilla style shooting with the 5D MkII, including entire scene in a famous church. The camera operator removed the matte box and follow focus so the camera looked like a 35mm still camera, and with the crew dressed as tourists we shot hand held using available light. The cast was radio miked and the sound mixer had the mixing console in a shoulder bag.
Another impressive thing about the 5D MkII, was in-camera effects we were able to create, including shooting a number scenes day-for-night. We did extensive tests in pre-production, and were able to shoot certain night exterior scenes at magic hour rather than shooting night-for-night. We had about a 45 minute window for magic hour at that time of year.
The above post is llad, not tomi. I've also found out a little about the history of the 5D and the sensor for both the 5D and 7D. Canon developed the 5D after news still photographers realized that they were in a great position at various news and sports events to not only take stills but also some video. So Canon decided to add 1080p HD video to fill this need. The sensor itself was developed by Panavision Technologies, which owns the patent on the sensor. They licensed the sensor to to Canon on the condition that Canon will not produce a camera with that sensor that looks like a video camera. That is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because the 5D and 7D can be very inconspicuous and a curse because many cinematographers are reluctant to use a camera that looks like a still camera to shoot HD footage, whether it be for a TV show or feature film. This attitude is changing, however. This year's season finale of the Fox TV series HOUSE was shot entirely with Canon 5D cameras. Also, at this year's Cinegear Expo on the Paramount lot, there were many displays of accessories for the 5D and 7D, including a soon to be marketed adaptor so the camera will be able to take Panavision lenes!