I'm about to be really stupid and...

4k in a dslr is not worth it at all. you need an external recorder for high quality 4k in a dslr

not sure why you like a dslr over a Canons C line or the FS line from sony. they both have way better features for video, waveform, focus peaking, zebras, higher image quality, better audio inputs.

I wouldn't go with the 7D Mark II if you mainly shoot video. I think its more of a stills camera.

I guess it depends on your budget really. New cameras come out every week it seems like.

If you want xlr ports (one of the biggest driving forces behind video equipment IMO) pick up a used fs100 or if you got mad cash buy an fs7? Just throwing it out there.

Doesnt seem worth it for you, since you shoot mostly non-action correct? Basically the 7dmk2 has 1080p60 which is dope for action but otherwise its kinda whatever.

Whats the deal with iso performance on the 7dmk2, is it as good as the 5dmk3? That could be worth the upgrade if it is, otherwise meh.

I mean you know the camera market, at this point the dslr you are comfortable with might not be an option anymore.

As for your glass, if you go the sony rough the metabones is a great adapter. As for gh4 i know they are coming out with/came out with a metabones but i dont know a ton about it.Either way, you should be okay? Glass is tough sometimes, in reality you could sell all of it but then youd have to get use to focusing the other way with basically every other lens on the market.

Rdwagner24k in a dslr is not worth it at all. you need an external recorder for high quality 4k in a dslr

not sure why you like a dslr over a Canons C line or the FS line from sony. they both have way better features for video, waveform, focus peaking, zebras, higher image quality, better audio inputs.

I wouldn't go with the 7D Mark II if you mainly shoot video. I think its more of a stills camera.

- What about the GH4? It doesn't need an external recorder to look good. It looks amazing straight from the camera.

- My t2i with magic lantern has the same amount of settings as both cameras. I like the Canon C line, but I can't justify the price difference from the canon dslr's. The C100 doesn't even have 60p at 720, and the C300 is outdated and the button layout with the viewfinder way on top is super annoying. I like the FS cameras too, but the FS100 doesn't have built in ND filters (Yes I'm lazy), and the button layout literally couldn't be worse. I like the shape of it, and the quality and super slow-mo in the FS700 is amazing, but the placements of the Layout of the buttons on that camera are terrible, and the fact you have to go into the menu to scroll between ISO levels is the most annoying thing in the world.

SourSteezle- What about the GH4? It doesn't need an external recorder to look good. It looks amazing straight from the camera.

I truly do not understand why anyone would consider a Canon DSLR for video now that the GH4 exists.

SourSteezle- What about the GH4? It doesn't need an external recorder to look good. It looks amazing straight from the camera.

- My t2i with magic lantern has the same amount of settings as both cameras. I like the Canon C line, but I can't justify the price difference from the canon dslr's. The C100 doesn't even have 60p at 720, and the C300 is outdated and the button layout with the viewfinder way on top is super annoying. I like the FS cameras too, but the FS100 doesn't have built in ND filters (Yes I'm lazy), and the button layout literally couldn't be worse. I like the shape of it, and the quality and super slow-mo in the FS700 is amazing, but the placements of the Layout of the buttons on that camera are terrible, and the fact you have to go into the menu to scroll between ISO levels is the most annoying thing in the world.

There is a huge difference in image quality and dynamic range between the Canon C line and there DSLR line. I you think the images from a $500 t2i and a $12000 C300 are the same you are crazy
the t2i is 4:2:0 and the C300 is 4:2:2 to start.

The c300 also does a clean uncompressed 10bit 4:2:2 signal out for an external recorder and has better dynamic range and more advanced color science

The c100 mark II has 1080p 60

Rdwagner2There is a huge difference in image quality and dynamic range between the Canon C line and there DSLR line. I you think the images from a $500 t2i and a $12000 C300 are the same you are crazy
the t2i is 4:2:0 and the C300 is 4:2:2 to start.

I know the difference in image quality is pretty substantial, but is it really worth the price difference? When I would prefer the feel of a DSLR body to begin with. And a raw shot from the GH4 is far superior to the Canon C Line, at a small fraction of the cost.

SourSteezleI know the difference in image quality is pretty substantial, but is it really worth the price difference? When I would prefer the feel of a DSLR body to begin with. And a raw shot from the GH4 is far superior to the Canon C Line, at a small fraction of the cost.

I think gh4 is your ticket. No XLR but you've been doing fine without it up til now.


Metabones m43 - > canon ef is $399. Completely worth it imo.

pussyfooterI guess it depends on your budget really. New cameras come out every week it seems like.

If you want xlr ports (one of the biggest driving forces behind video equipment IMO) pick up a used fs100 or if you got mad cash buy an fs7? Just throwing it out there.

Doesnt seem worth it for you, since you shoot mostly non-action correct? Basically the 7dmk2 has 1080p60 which is dope for action but otherwise its kinda whatever.

Whats the deal with iso performance on the 7dmk2, is it as good as the 5dmk3? That could be worth the upgrade if it is, otherwise meh.

I mean you know the camera market, at this point the dslr you are comfortable with might not be an option anymore.

I've been watching low light videos and it looks like it's almost identical to the 5d mkiii. Which would be a huge upgrade from my current t2i. Besides that I don't have much of a reason to upgrade other than 60p at 1080.

I think I've decided I don't want to go the FS100 route, simply because the lack of super slow mo and built in ND filters, and because the button layout sucks. Anyone think Canon will come out with a 4k DSLR in the next year?

The GH4 is a great camera. Never said it wasn't, but its not in the same market as the canon C line and is still not as good IMO.

and the firmware update to shoot raw out of the GH4 is not out yet. its expected in December, and it may only but 1080p Raw at 24/30. When it is out you will need both the gh4 interface unit and an external recorder. so its around 4 to 5k at that point. plus some pricey media for that external recorder.

canon has a 4k DSLR its the 1dc. its not affordable at 10k
I don't really see them coming out with another DSLR that does 4k
They just released the 7D mark II and somewhat recently updated the 5D Mark III
If they release a 4k camera it will be the C300 mark II

here is a quick comparison of the best DSLR cameras for video
http://www.eoshd.com/2014/09/canon-7d-mark-ii-video-specs-vs-enthusiast-dslr-competition-gh4-a7s-5d3/

Rdwagner24k in a dslr is not worth it at all. you need an external recorder for high quality 4k in a dslr

not sure why you like a dslr over a Canons C line or the FS line from sony. they both have way better features for video, waveform, focus peaking, zebras, higher image quality, better audio inputs.

I wouldn't go with the 7D Mark II if you mainly shoot video. I think its more of a stills camera.

Magic Lantern takes care of that. Easily installable and offers quite a bit with a great amount of extra goodies,

I got the 7D MK2 a few weeks ago and I thought it was a really needed upgrade for me. Some pointers about why I like it/why I got it:

- 1080 60fps - Not so much as having full HD as that the footage is significantly sharper when filming at 60fps than with the T3i
- Low light - Fucked around with it a little at night when I got it, it's remarkable how much better it is than the T3i (to be expected, though, haha) in the dark
- Weather sealing
- Most of the rest lies with the photo capabilities of the camera. I wanted a camera that I could still use to take pictures as much as I did with my T3i. This is probably the big one because all of the options were more expensive or implausible:
+ Buy a GH3/4 sell Canon lenses, buy M43 lenses, use GH4 exclusively - Would be really expensive, can't sell the 70-200 I use since it's my Dad's
+ Buy a GH3/4, buy M43 lenses, keep T3i for photos - Hella expensive, can't carry that kinda shit around
+ Buy a GH3/4, buy M43 to EF adapter, keep lenses - Sacrificing quality and autofocus in photos using an adapter, not really an option
+ Buy a 7D 2, keep current setup - Enhanced video, way better photos, body expensive, but realistic retrospectively compared with other options

I don't know if it was necessary to list my rationale there, but I would recommend the 7D if you are (a) looking to keep your current lenses/have to keep your current lenses and (b) going to shoot photography.

gavinrudyI got the 7D MK2 a few weeks ago and I thought it was a really needed upgrade for me. Some pointers about why I like it/why I got it:

- 1080 60fps - Not so much as having full HD as that the footage is significantly sharper when filming at 60fps than with the T3i
- Low light - Fucked around with it a little at night when I got it, it's remarkable how much better it is than the T3i (to be expected, though, haha) in the dark
- Weather sealing
- Most of the rest lies with the photo capabilities of the camera. I wanted a camera that I could still use to take pictures as much as I did with my T3i. This is probably the big one because all of the options were more expensive or implausible:
+ Buy a GH3/4 sell Canon lenses, buy M43 lenses, use GH4 exclusively - Would be really expensive, can't sell the 70-200 I use since it's my Dad's
+ Buy a GH3/4, buy M43 lenses, keep T3i for photos - Hella expensive, can't carry that kinda shit around
+ Buy a GH3/4, buy M43 to EF adapter, keep lenses - Sacrificing quality and autofocus in photos using an adapter, not really an option
+ Buy a 7D 2, keep current setup - Enhanced video, way better photos, body expensive, but realistic retrospectively compared with other options

I don't know if it was necessary to list my rationale there, but I would recommend the 7D if you are (a) looking to keep your current lenses/have to keep your current lenses and (b) going to shoot photography.

Okay, well it's good to know I'm not the only one in this situation. I think I'm going to pull the trigger, I know adorama had a promotional deal for $1600, but that's expired. Anyone think or know of any discounted prices on the MK II? Think that there will be some good discounts for the holiday season? OR should I just go ahead and pay the 1800.

Gavin, if you also have any raw shots from the camera, and any 1080 at 60 shots, I'd love to see them. Thanks

I'm not saying you shouldnt go for it or that the 7d mark II is an bad camera and not better than what you have.

Just know thar you are buying the exact same camera sensor you already own. Just upgrading the processing chip and weather sealed body.

Personally I couldnt justify spending almost 2000 and not improve my cameras sensor.

Rdwagner2I'm not saying you shouldnt go for it or that the 7d mark II is an bad camera and not better than what you have.

Just know thar you are buying the exact same camera sensor you already own. Just upgrading the processing chip and weather sealed body.

Personally I couldnt justify spending almost 2000 and not improve my cameras sensor.

This is a good point, but there are a significant number of other factors coming into play here. Additionally, just because it isn't a new sensor doesn't mean it's a bad one.

gavinrudyjust because it isn't a new sensor doesn't mean it's a bad one.

When talking about the 7D, that's precisely what it means.

I think that it's a good idea