DSLR vs. Cinema EOS

[CLKeller16]

Okay, so I am an amateur producer/photographer. I got my first DSLR abour four years ago (a used Canon EOS 7D Mark I), and initally used it for photographing still images. After a few years I moved into shooting video with it, and I absolutely love the way my videos turn out. Rechently, however, I've been noting people shooting with Canon's Cinema EOS series. Now I know nothing really about the difference in specs of different cameras (my dad has a 60D and besides physical layout, I don't see much difference), but I have to assume that the C-series of cameras would better suit me than my 7D. I am shooting mostly fast moving sports right now (football, wrestling, cheerleading...). So I guess my question to you all is this: what is the difference between my 7D and the Cinema EOS series? How hard would it be to switch from my DSLR to a camera like the C100 or C300? And would it fit my current needs for a camera?

Thanks!

Cody

[ebiggs1]

Photography is full of choices!  

[wq9nsc]

Dynamic range is the range available between a system's noise floor and the maximum value to which it can respond in the desired manner.  We run into the same optical issue with our own vision when someone very heavily backlit is approaching us often rendering their facial features unrecognizable as our iris closes down to avoid overloading our vision system.  In audio it is the range between the minimum sound we can discern and at the extreme upper limit, the threshold of pain.  Unfortunately photography is often very demanding in terms of actual versus capturable dynamic range forcing us to choose somewhere in the lesser of two evils blend.

For most situations I try to avoid "clipping" which occurs when the exposure of part of the sensor exceeds the level at which it returns its maximum value thus causing the loss of detail.  But the same problem happens at the other extreme when details are lost in the noise floor (to the exent that de-noising algorithms are no longer useful). 

Last Friday the local high school was having sports demonstrations from some of their Fall teams and I quickly decided that a bit of clipping from the football helmets (which were devoid of relevant details) was preferable in order to have a little less noise in the many darker areas but this is an exception to my usual operation.  The worst place I have shot is an indoor soccer arena which has abysmal overall lighting levels but with lots of random spots that often create a scene with severely blown highlights coupled with details lost to noise.  In this case it isn't just the 1DX2 that is complaining but the players themselves as they go from blinding light to near cave dark. 

As ebiggs1 stated photography is full of choices most of which involve some pretty important trade-offs.

Rodger

[RobertTheFat]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

Yeah, I was mainly thinking that you might choose to lose details in the sky when correctly exposing a portrait.

---

I was about to make that point by elaborating on your previous post until I saw that you've already done so.

But the argument can be applied to landscapes as well as to portraits. I've found that for some subjects of certain colors under certain lighting conditions, a white sky (which often involves blown highlights) can actually be preferable to a blue sky.

[ebiggs1]

"...a white sky ... can actually be preferable to a blue sky."

And, it can be any color you prefer with PS.  

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...a white sky ... can actually be preferable to a blue sky."

And, it can be any color you prefer with PS.  

---

And unless the person doing the editing is very skilled and very careful, the picture will appear conspicuously Photoshopped.

Several years ago, we had a guy on one of the Usenet forums who was fixated on the notion that all skies had to be blue. If they weren't blue enough, he made them bluer; consequently, most of his landscapes looked ridiculous.

[ebiggs1]

Robert,

"... consequently, most of his landscapes looked ridiculous."

That was him.  Not me! 

 Is it? Or, isn't it?

This is a photo of the Kansas river.  We are in an extreme drought.  But the sky is beautiful,....or is it?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Robert,

"... consequently, most of his landscapes looked ridiculous."

That was him.  Not me! 

 Is it? Or, isn't it?

This is a photo of the Kansas river.  We are in an extreme drought.  But the sky is beautiful,....or is it?

---

I think I can sort of see the line above which you added some blue. But you're much better at it than that other guy (from California, IIRC) was. If one of his pictures had fog, he'd make it look blue.

[ebiggs1]

Robert there ain't no clouds in a drought.  I have posted pictures on this forum that have been heavily edited in PS and the real beauty no one has even noticed.  Not even our resident industry spokesman.  That is the real beauty of PS.

I am just a PS user, I have friends, from Hallmark and fellow photographers that are PS super users. They can do stuff you would not believe.

My family and friends ask, "Did you photoshop that?"  FIRST right off! The don't even give me a chance to lie about it!  

[ebiggs1]

BTW, Robert, "I think I can sort of see the line above which you added some blue."

You can't see a line, I won't say what else you might see but there is no line dividing the shot.

[ebiggs1]

You see Robert you keep shots like this on hand for later use.

Ya just never know when they might come in handy.