What camera is best for me... Canon 5D mkii or the 7D

[AshD_UK]

Hi everyone, I've just started out in the tv/film industry and looking to buy a camera that gives great quality video and also a good picture quality as I freelance as both a photographer and cameraman.

I am looking at both the 7D and 5D mark ii, I have been going crazy the last few days trying to decide on which one to get being that I love both cameras for different reasons.

I like the idea of the 7D for the higher fps for slow motion and action shots and the the fact that is has a flash built in but I am also drawn towards the 5D for the apparent better image quality and that it is better in low light with a higher ISO. I have read through countless forums and I am still completely split!

Both have their obvious appeals and drawbacks but cannot decide which one would be more suited for me. At the moment, I feel slightly more drawn towards the 7D but also find the 5D appealing for its advantages in low light.. does anyone have experience of both? Is the 5D noticeably better in low light? and is the 7D still quite good in low light?

If anyone can help, I really appreciate it as I am about to go insane if I read another forum with people arguing that their camera is better.

Im going to buy a lens with wahtever camera I get but yet to decide on which one to go for.

 

[AshD_UK]

Also, as I will use the camera for shorts and so on.. audio will be a factor that is important, which one would be better for this?

 

[Bram]

You decide, nobody here can choose for you, they will only say which camera they would buy. Go to the store and hold both of them, check the specs and decide which will benefit you more.

 

[Overread20]

The 5DM2 has a controllable volume audio recording with both its internal and external mic connection - whilst the 7D only has auto volume control. This feature was added to the 5DM2 in an update and some are wondering if the 7D will get it in an update or not (for the foreseeable future with the trouble in Japan the answer is no - and if it waits too long canon might just release a 7DM2 with the feature instead of updating the original).

If you record audio with a totally separate audio recording setup this is a moot point; but if your using a mic on the camera the 5DM2 would give you a much bigger advantage in the audio department.

 

[Village Idiot]

Neither one is particularly great for audio. External solutions will be better any day of the week. The larger sensor on the 5D MKII might attribute to being able to shoot more and have less down time from heat. I haven't seen many 5D MKII people complain about heat shut downs, if any at all, but I've seen plenty about smaller sensor Canons. You might want to research that.

Also, check out the cinema5d.com forums. It's a forum dedicated to DSLR videography. You'd be better off asking your questions there.

 

[Dao]

Do not know if this site will make you gear more on the 5dmk2 or not. But I think you should check them out if you are into film related stuff.

Magic Lantern Firmware Wiki

 

[cabrosh]

Is cost a factor? I went with the 7D so I could put more money into lenses. Either one will need good glass to get the pictures they're capable of, and a quality IS lens can cost more than the camera. Most top notch Canon lenses are 77mm, and 77mm filters aren't cheap, either. You'll get better pictures with a 7D and an L lens than a 5Dmk2 and a basic lens. Check out the controls and menus on both before you decide, see how they handle with a heavy lens attached. Good luck!

 

[molested_cow1]

Nikon.




Joking. For audio, why not use a separate microphone or sound recorder like one of those Sony ones? You are going to edit the video anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem syncing the audio with it. I'd not expect much out of the quality of audio from any DSLR.

 

[dnavarrojr]

I shoot video for a living and the answer depends on what you are shooting...

First, as others have suggest, you need to totally give up on the idea of recording video in-camera. Even if you use the Magic Lantern firmware, it's still not as good quality as getting a Zoom H1 ($99) or Zoom H4N ($300). I have the Zoom H1 and the sound quality is great, not to mention the convenience of being able to hand it to someone with a boom to get into a better position for recording audio.

Second, the ONLY advantage the 5DM2 has over the 7D for video is better low light because it's a full frame sensor. So if you are shooting in uncontrolled light (outdoor, news-journalism type stuff) you want the 5D. Otherwise, you're going to get a LOT more versatility in shooting with the 7D. If you're doing film making, webisodes, or television the 7D gives you more creative freedom. Again, strictly from a video point of view. For still photos, the 5D is better hands down.

Both are a good choice over the T2i, 60D and T3i because both the 5D and 7D are weather sealed (using the proper lenses). Although the construction of the 5D is a bit more solid and it takes more of a punishment (I saw a friend standing on a breakwater with his 5D get nailed with a huge wave, he shook it off and kept shooting).

If you are always shooting in a controlled environment (studio, outdoor set, or staged outdoor shooting) then the T2i, 60D and T3i will give you identical images and video as the 7D. The 7D's dual processors let you shoot stills faster, but it's the same sensor.

Oh, if you are not using a battery grip on your camera, the T2i, 60D and T3i will overheat faster when shooting video than the 7D. But with the battery grip on my T2i, I rarely run into overheating issues unless it's 80+ degrees outside when I'm shooting. Then a freezer gel pack clipped to left side (side opposite the shutter release) of the camera with a rubber band fixes that problem.

 

[mikehaugen]

I don't understand everyone's obsession with buying a dslr with the intend of shooting mostly video. Wouldn't a dedicated video camera do a better job? I always thought of the video feature on a dslr as kind of a gimmick afterthought- maybe it would come in handy in a pinch. Maybe I am wrong, I don't have a lot of knowledge of video, but it seems to me with most things that buying something that is made for a specific purpose always gives better results than buying something that is "capable" of a certain feature. Especially if you are looking at a 5dmkII, I would think $2500 would get you a pretty decent video camera- maybe not 7:00 o'clock news quality, but I would think better than a dlsr. Then just by a decent p&s for stills, at least then you could do both at the same time. Maybe I am way off base here and I am underestimating the abilities of the newer technology.

 

[Offhand]

Actually, Hollywood has jumped all over DSLRs and uses them to shoot scenes in major motion pictures, commercials and television shows. The last season finale of House was shot entirely with Canon 5D mkii's. There's an entire industry growing around shooting video with DSLR rigs. They're cheaper than a dedicated video camera, faster to setup, lighter and with L lenses or cine lenses with adapters, you get top quality. Of course, the rigs are pretty tricked out with firmware mods. But it's essentially the same camera and lenses you'd buy at Samy's. Just go to YouTube and check out the video that people are posting. High production values from the desktop is very accessible now. Too bad the content is a bit lacking but that's not something you can buy.

I don't understand everyone's obsession with buying a dslr with the intend of shooting mostly video. Wouldn't a dedicated video camera do a better job? I always thought of the video feature on a dslr as kind of a gimmick afterthought- maybe it would come in handy in a pinch. Maybe I am wrong, I don't have a lot of knowledge of video, but it seems to me with most things that buying something that is made for a specific purpose always gives better results than buying something that is "capable" of a certain feature. Especially if you are looking at a 5dmkII, I would think $2500 would get you a pretty decent video camera- maybe not 7:00 o'clock news quality, but I would think better than a dlsr. Then just by a decent p&s for stills, at least then you could do both at the same time. Maybe I am way off base here and I am underestimating the abilities of the newer technology.

 

[Overread20]

I think its true to add and say that a good video DSLR is not something you just take out of the box and slap a lens on and use. It requires different skills to stills photography and also benefits greatly from a range of external addons - sound has already been mentioned, but holding support (for less wobble when hand holding) - tripods with fluid motion heads - eyecup viewfinder hoods over the LCD (giving you a viewfinder type use). There is a lot more to is than that of course and lots of little and big extras to consider.

I think that many who have classed the video feature as a gimmick have tried it out - got rubbish and (because they are good with stills) classed it as worthless. With the right support and the right skills its a worthy setup and great for getting into tight places or for reducing the bulk of travelling if one is already using a DSLR.

 

[Village Idiot]

I don't understand everyone's obsession with buying a dslr with the intend of shooting mostly video. Wouldn't a dedicated video camera do a better job? I always thought of the video feature on a dslr as kind of a gimmick afterthought- maybe it would come in handy in a pinch. Maybe I am wrong, I don't have a lot of knowledge of video, but it seems to me with most things that buying something that is made for a specific purpose always gives better results than buying something that is "capable" of a certain feature. Especially if you are looking at a 5dmkII, I would think $2500 would get you a pretty decent video camera- maybe not 7:00 o'clock news quality, but I would think better than a dlsr. Then just by a decent p&s for stills, at least then you could do both at the same time. Maybe I am way off base here and I am underestimating the abilities of the newer technology.

I hightlighted the important part of your post.

If you've looked up good video shot on a DSLR, researched the video feature on a DSLR and how people are using it, or compared the price of a camera and setup that has equal or better quality with the same features, then you're ignorant on the subject and everything you say about it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Why am I so defensive? A lot of people say video on a DSLR is a gimmick, but they haven't seen videos from people like Vincent Laforet or any of the number of videos from users of cinema5d.com. They don't know that videographers now have tools where they can spend $5,000 and have a video camera that shoots 1080p, has the option for detachable lenses with huge wide open apertures, and the ability to shoot with very crappy low light. The new DSLRs can compare to some very expensive rigs. They do have issues to work around, but if DSLRs with video were such a gimmick, you wouldn't see the large amount of indie film makers embracing the technology. It open up options at a price range, for a lot of people, that was previously unavailable.

Of course, I'm talking about productions here and not family videos and such.

 

[tyler_h]

Most people will notice poor quality audio more than a slightly grainier video etc. That in mind, Overread has mentioned the audio control with the 5D II, so that would make me lean that way. You have to consider it as a full package for external mic, rig, body, and the lenses you want.

I know guy who works as a videographer (whatever its called) for a news station, but shoots weddings/events in his spare time and currently used a 5D II. Had nothing bad to say about it for videoing purposes.

 

[mikehaugen]

I don't understand everyone's obsession

Maybe I am wrong, I don't have a lot of knowledge of video

Maybe I am way off base here and I am underestimating the abilities of the newer technology.

I also only included the important stuff, I wasn't trying to say that everyone was wrong, I just didn't know enough about it. DSLR's may well be quite capable, more than I imagined. I haven't used one for video, nor do I have the skill to get a decent video probably anyway. But people do still buy the $5,000, $10,000, and $40,000 cameras so there has to be a reason. Does say a 5dmkII with the necessary accessories compare well with a dedicated video camera in that price range? I couldn't say. Sorry if I offended someone by knocking the idea, but these were my thoughts and as stated "I didn't know" and just wanted to hear people's position.