What is the OP's objective?
"Movies" or videos are not about image quality (which looks fine to me) - it's about holding an audiences (or viewer's) attention.
There isn't a digital SLR in existence that ANY videographer or cinematographer would CHOOSE to use to capture motion pictures.
Yeah, I know - TV shows have been recorded with the 5D2 and I'm sure that Canon will continue to pay for 'promotional considerations" to have that continue - same with using dSLR cameras to shoot a few random scenes in feature films - it's all about advertising - And using equipment that no sane individual would ever buy to properly equip a dSLR to adapt it's poor form factor to make it usable for video capture.
I've mentioned this more than once before - on Nikon's website there is a 4 or 5 minute "movie" shot using the new D800 camera to show off it's capabilities..... I believe Nikon says what lenses were used, but not how many cameras were used. (or how many of each lens were available assuming multiple cameras were used). But most importantly, the credits clearly show that over 100 skilled filmmakers were involved in the collaborative effort to plan, shoot and edit a 4 or 5 minute movie. Making "films' (or videos) is NOT an endeavor for solo "artists" -
Stating that the design or a still reflex camera is a bad form factor for shooing video is (IMO) a vast understatement.
I worked in the motion picture industry for over 40 years and in daytime or nighttime scenes, indoors or outdoors, rain, sleet, snow or sunshine (none of the weather related issues ever being natural) - there is ALWAYS supplementary lighting used - expecting to shoot in the dark using high ISO is an absurdly amateurish approach. On a par with the complaints I hear about being limited to 30 minutes of continuous shooting. Motion picture cameras used to film theatrical releases (film cameras) hold 300 meter reels of film that run for 11 minutes. It is extremely rare to see a continuous shot that lasts for more than 7 or 8 seconds even in quickly produced TV programs.
Steven Spielberg and every other great natural talent used 8mm film cameras which had a 2 minute film capacity when developing their skills - along with at least some sort of minimal crew - Watch the movie "Super Eight" to get an idea from what is obviously a loosely based autobiographical story about a 12 year old Speilberg..
It's all about editing and planning and collaboration -
In reality it's something that toddler's blowing out birthday candles - or taking their first steps - or any other "home movies" is best done with a dedicated video camera - most of which cost less than any EF lens...and are easier to hold steady, have 40x optical zooms, etc. -
Yes, there is equipment that can be purchased to make a dSLR more suitable for shooting video, but why would anyone spend $50K-$100K to buy a Steadycam for a $1500 camera? Or a $3500 camera? If it's to use EF lenses,Canon offers their EF mount version of their C 300 video camera with a "full" 35mm sensor - And yes, it's a lot more expensive than a 5D or a 1Ds or a 1DX, but it's got a proper form factor - not a design from the 1930s for a still camera.
The obsession with "image quality" is a waste of time...so is attempting to shoot video without proper lighting.
Video is only good if it holds attention - no one cares about "image quality" - they want to be entertained. 16mm films are used in almost all documentaries and in some low budget feature films..grainy and poorly lit movies like the original "Night of the living dead" and the "Blair witch project" made money at the box office and didn't have the "image quality" of today's $150 video cameras..but they had scripts and they had lighting and they had editing done by people trained in their different crafts.
.Having $10million worth of film or video equipment will be completely worthless unless there is a substantial budget and a talented crew and an interesting subject.
Even with my 40 years in the business and with a degree in film I would no more attempt to use any of the 4 cameras I own that can record video (not to mention a half dozen or so cell phones I've owned during this decade) than I would attempt to fly the Space Shuttle - something that I know NOTHING about.
I do know what it takes to produce full length films and 30 second TV commercials - trying to do either as a solo project is far beyond my capabilities and would be a complete waste of time.
There may be a handful of individuals in the world that are capable of creating "art" or "entertainment" with a movie camera or a video camera by themselves - but their talent is as rare as that of a Mozart or a Da Vinci or a Picasso - But certainly they would have to record very simple subjects and still do a lot of editing and add sound. And have the equipment to do it.
I've yet to see anything other than a "how to" videos on You Tube that have served any purpose beyond demonstrating "image quality" while showing a boring static shot of ducks in a pond or a babbling brook or things like that. It's just not an endeavor for an individual. There's a reason that movie credits go on and show that that each feature length film is an effort requiring hundreds - sometimes over a thousand crew members. And those endless credits don't include the people that work for the caterers and countless others who are not credited individually. The teamsters that load and unload the tractor trailers full of equipment on location shoots...the interns that work under the grips and gaffers and so on. The medical people who stand by in case they are needed. Extras in scenes that require them (in some cases hundreds in some cases thousands) - the municipal employees (cops, firemen, etc.) that control crowds in location shots in populated areas - (I could go on for pages).
Who cares how much (in this case - imaginary "noise" there might be in a dull shot of a couch? No matter what - noise or no noise the "image quality' is better than anything possible using small format film with ASA/ISO speeds that didn't come close to the mentioned "640" until very recently - but was never a factor because lighting was always what it still is today - the most important element of good exposure.
I've worked on large sound stages with perhaps a thousand different available lights - I've worked in tiny local TV stations that did nothing at their sources other than local newscasts and even they had dozens of studio lights just to properly light one or two newscasters and a weather reporter. In a nutshell, every scene I've ever lit or seen lit required lights - I've never seen a single scene shot using only available natural light - even if no electrical lights were used, reflectors were used - always something to assure correct exposure and control of light and shadow. Look up the term "chiaroscuro" - a subject that was perhaps the most heavily emphasized of any in my many courses required to get my BA degree in film and TV. There are no shortcuts in lighting - continuity itself requires NOT depending on natural light with no supplementation.
I've said almost every word here in one form or another more than a few times - this is the last time I will waste any effort with trying to communicate the futility of being sold on a feature that is truly useless and only exists due to the innovation of "live view" by Olympus years ago -
Really - there's no reason for anyone to struggle with video using a dSLR when HD camcorders are cheap, easier to use and much more versatile than any dSLR - try pulling focus or zooming smoothly with a dSLR camera - it's just not the right tool for the job. (without very expensive modifications and the knowledge of how to use them) -
I would equate trying to make a "film" as a solo effort as likely as being able to build a suspension bridge as a solo effort. A complete absurdity. I don't know of anyone who is able to write a script, film the action, be the cast and the sound engineer - at the same time be a sole grip, gaffer, focus puller, continuity person, director, editor, cook and bottle washer - driver, dolly operator, art director, set carpenter, storyboard artist, clapper operator - second camera operator, casting director, production assistant, stunt coordinator, special effects creator, etc...etc..etc...
I am also not aware of any EF mount anamorphic lenses -
I just noticed that! Dammmmmm...Or should I say "
