Video Sharpness Canon 80d

[XxSP4CE_C0WB0YxX]

Hey so I had a question regarding video sharpness in mirrorless and DSLR cameras.  I'm almost ready to pull the gun on a Sony A7rii with a Zeiss FF lense.  But I was curious with Canon cameras especially the Canon 80d, if I went with a EF L lense, how sharper would video be instead of using the kit lense or a inferior lense to the EF L.  I was just wondering if video on the 80D would look much crisper and sharper if someone went with the professional grade L Canon lenses.  I guess I do know the L lense will look sharper, but how much sharper will video look going with the L lense rather than a kit or cheaper lense.  any help would be awesome!  thanks!

[.spider.]

Zero difference

[AkiraDaarkst]

4 hours ago, XxSP4CE_C0WB0YxX said:

Hey so I had a question regarding video sharpness in mirrorless and DSLR cameras.  I'm almost ready to pull the gun on a Sony A7rii with a Zeiss FF lense.  But I was curious with Canon cameras especially the Canon 80d, if I went with a EF L lense, how sharper would video be instead of using the kit lense or a inferior lense to the EF L.  I was just wondering if video on the 80D would look much crisper and sharper if someone went with the professional grade L Canon lenses.  I guess I do know the L lense will look sharper, but how much sharper will video look going with the L lense rather than a kit or cheaper lense.  any help would be awesome!  thanks!

In terms of center sharpness, no difference.  But you may find differences in corner to corner sharpness or other things like lens distortion or chromatic aberration.  One of the lenses I use on my video camera, the only power zoom lens I have, fantastic in terms of sharpness but bad pincushion distortion.  I can set the camera to automatically correct for distortion in some settings and in other settings that option is disabled so that I have to put in an effort to correct it in post if I am filming scenes with straight lines in the edges.

[xQubeZx]

Probably not much difference. What Zeiss lens do you plan to get? But isn't the 80D and the A7r ii in two completley different price groups? Or well, they are. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

3 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Probably not much difference. What Zeiss lens do you plan to get? But isn't the 80D and the A7r ii in two completley different price groups? Or well, they are. 

Yep they are two different types of camera systems, a DSLR and MILC.  One is APS-C and the other Full Frame.

 

@OP, another issue to consider when buying lenses is the crop factor of the sensor.  Mounting a lens designed for FF sensors (most Canon L lenses are FF lenses) on a cropped body means that you use a smaller central portion of the lens, the better portion, because if there are any image sharpness/softness issues with lenses they tend to be on the edges.  On the other hand you do lose a bit of field of view.

[cc143]

50 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Yep they are two different types of camera systems, a DSLR and MILC.  One is APS-C and the other Full Frame.

 

@OP, another issue to consider when buying lenses is the crop factor of the sensor.  Mounting a lens designed for FF sensors (most Canon L lenses are FF lenses) on a cropped body means that you use a smaller central portion of the lens, the better portion, because if there are any image sharpness/softness issues with lenses they tend to be on the edges.  On the other hand you do lose a bit of field of view.

Yes, but its not just that I think (apart from the sensor) is that the a7r shoots 4k FF vs. the 1080p APS-C on the 80d, that and the $3,000+ vs ~$1000 for the 80d. Also, you have the DPAF and articulating screen on the Canon and better battery life. 

 

@OP The lens issue could be corrected by just going with an ultrawide. But, if video is what you want to do, and have the budget, I'd lean towards an APS-C sized sensor with 4k capability like on the a6500 and crop lenses. I have read a lot about people preferring to shoot 4k on APS-C rather than FF for the broader lens availability, and how the camera shoots, basically, since the resolution of 4k is under 9mp, the camera has to work more to get it down from the 40mp+ of the a7.   Of course I could have misunderstood what I read, I'm not that big on video, and obviously, you have dof and fov advantages with FF sensors. 

 

In terms of the two, assuming both shoot at the same resolution, they should be as sharp, the Sony would just cost considerably more. 

 

I would go with the a6500 and a good crop lens if video is my main use. It would be far cheaper and potentially more practical, at least until Canon graces the market with a 4k APS-C body, that's the only option on that front. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

5 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Yes, but its not just that I think (apart from the sensor) is that the a7r shoots 4k FF vs. the 1080p APS-C on the 80d, that and the $3,000+ vs ~$1000 for the 80d. Also, you have the DPAF and articulating screen on the Canon and better battery life. 

Yep. That too.

 

I prefer filming with a Super35 sensor because with video you don't really need the ultra thin DOF that might be preferable with photos.  A photo is a still image, video is images in motion and it's already hard enough trying to keep things in focus when your subject is moving.  I don't need the DOF to be so thin that every minute movement of the talents' head or body throws the focus off.  You can get thin enough DOF with a cropped sensor to blur out the background, no need to go the FF route to get thin DOFs.

 

Also, sensor resolution plays a role in scaling down images as you said.  That's why I think the 12MP or so of the A7s II is better for video than the 42MP of the A7r II.

[cc143]

1 minute ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Yep. That too.

 

I prefer filming with a Super35 sensor because with video you don't really need the ultra thin DOF that might be preferable with photos.  A photo is a still image, video is images in motion and it's already hard enough trying to keep things in focus when your subject is moving.  I don't need the DOF to be so thin that every minute movement of the talents' head or body throws the focus off.  You can get thin enough DOF with a cropped sensor to blur out the background, no need to go the FF route to get thin DOFs.

 

Also, sensor resolution plays a role in scaling down images as you said.  That's why I think the 12MP or so of the A7s II is better for video than the 42MP of the A7r II.

That's why I think what Canon did with the 5d4 isn't that bad, not that I'd personally care if I were able to buy one or interested in upgrading at this point. 

 

I agree completely, obviously I hadn't thought about the keeping the thing in focus, which must be impossible at 30 fps @ f/1.4. And anyway, the instances where you actually shoot a lens wide open are scarce, even for stills, you will stop down to 2.8, even with a 1.4 anyway, as you said, at 1.4 dof is razor thin, even in stills its quite hard to nail the focus sometimes. 

 

Considering this, I certainly would go with an APS-C sized camera like the a6500 and buy a couple of lenses at that price. Maybe a 16-35mm, an ultrawide, like a ~10-18 and maybe a fast 50 or better yet  a fast 35. You could also go with the MC-11 and 35 ART if size isn;t that much of a concern, battery life just get a 20,000mah anker powerbank and call it a day, sometimes I wish I could do that on my DSLR even.  The savings from the a7rii should cover the difference in price for the lenses. You may also want some sort of rig since in my experience the a6x00 bodies are quite uncomfortable to shoot with (although my hands a re huge so that might have contributed.) 

[xQubeZx]

On 2017-04-02 at 4:14 PM, cc143 said:

That's why I think what Canon did with the 5d4 isn't that bad, not that I'd personally care if I were able to buy one or interested in upgrading at this point. 

 

I agree completely, obviously I hadn't thought about the keeping the thing in focus, which must be impossible at 30 fps @ f/1.4. And anyway, the instances where you actually shoot a lens wide open are scarce, even for stills, you will stop down to 2.8, even with a 1.4 anyway, as you said, at 1.4 dof is razor thin, even in stills its quite hard to nail the focus sometimes. 

 

Considering this, I certainly would go with an APS-C sized camera like the a6500 and buy a couple of lenses at that price. Maybe a 16-35mm, an ultrawide, like a ~10-18 and maybe a fast 50 or better yet  a fast 35. You could also go with the MC-11 and 35 ART if size isn;t that much of a concern, battery life just get a 20,000mah anker powerbank and call it a day, sometimes I wish I could do that on my DSLR even.  The savings from the a7rii should cover the difference in price for the lenses. You may also want some sort of rig since in my experience the a6x00 bodies are quite uncomfortable to shoot with (although my hands a re huge so that might have contributed.) 

If video is going to be the main use I would go with this route. Maybe a A7s ii if you really want the FF look but since you where depating about the 80D I doubt you do. 

 

And as said, get a cage for the A6500 to be able to mount a large powerbank, mic, and other accessories. 

 

However I often shoot photos wide open..love the bokeh. Don't have a 1.4 lens though but I planning on getting one just to shoot wide open. Sharpness isn't my main concern. I think its kinda bs to buy a 1.4 lens if you never use it at 1.4 because its a tad soft. Damn I'd buy a 1.2 if there was one for Sony E to shoot wide open and get that very shallow dof. Kinda debating between the Sigma 30 1.4 or a used manual focus Leica...have seen some good prices on a few. 

[cc143]

2 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

If video is going to be the main use I would go with this route. Maybe a A7s ii if you really want the FF look but since you where depating about the 80D I doubt you do. 

 

And as said, get a cage for the A6500 to be able to mount a large powerbank, mic, and other accessories. 

 

However I often shoot photos wide open..love the bokeh. Don't have a 1.4 lens though but I planning on getting one just to shoot wide open. Sharpness isn't my main concern. I think its kinda bs to buy a 1.4 lens if you never use it at 1.4 because its a tad soft. Damn I'd buy a 1.2 if there was one for Sony E to shoot wide open and get that very shallow dof. Kinda debating between the Sigma 30 1.4 or a used manual focus Leica...have seen some good prices on a few. 

The sharpness of the lens wide open is a concern, quite a significant one at that, I'm not saying you never shoot wide open though, If your subject is close enough so that you can nail focus and sharpness isn't that much of an issue sure, but it's not always optimal, sometimes, even for portraits, it's better to shoot at f/2.0 or somewhere near there. I have used my 50 1.4 for low light portraits wide open before with tremendous results,  and the sigma is obviously going to be even better, (the canon 50 1.4 is quite long in the tooth.) But the image can end up being a lot sharper when stopped down slightly, and sometimes, it's worth the tradeoff. 

[xQubeZx]

16 hours ago, cc143 said:

The sharpness of the lens wide open is a concern, quite a significant one at that, I'm not saying you never shoot wide open though, If your subject is close enough so that you can nail focus and sharpness isn't that much of an issue sure, but it's not always optimal, sometimes, even for portraits, it's better to shoot at f/2.0 or somewhere near there. I have used my 50 1.4 for low light portraits wide open before with tremendous results,  and the sigma is obviously going to be even better, (the canon 50 1.4 is quite long in the tooth.) But the image can end up being a lot sharper when stopped down slightly, and sometimes, it's worth the tradeoff. 

Yes it all depends. I rarley shoot landscapes below f/8. However portraits I like to shoot below f/2.8 and I love the 1.4 look, if you nail the focus. But I do also sometimes step down to say f/2-f/4 ish to get a sharper result, or mainly, getting easier focusing.