>Too bad you had to send back to the loaner camera to Canon in Germany, I suppose?

I live in California.

>not be my first choice to shoot a fast-paced action thriller jam-packed with chases and fight sequences, you know what I mean? ;-)

Glad this is not my goal. I work mainly to document places that I photograph.

"Right you are, Uwe. It breaks one's heart that the CMOS + rolling shutter cameras have so many nasty induced artifats, "thanks" to the rolling shutter (as opposed to the far superior global shutter found in CCD video cameras and film cameras)."

Film cameras use a "rolling shutter" as well. The entire frame on a negative is not being completely exposed at all times because of the rotating shutter on a film camera. I actually think the global shutter of the CCD camera lends itself to the sterile look of CCD cameras, but that is just my opinion. Good job not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

Andrew, you are perhaps partially right with the whole convoluted shutter issue. CMOS + electronic rolling shutters operate by exposing each and every pixel inividually, at slightly different times, pixel after pixel left to right, row after row top to bottom. Let's say you have an 18MP sensor, that means that each of the 18,000 pixels get "exposed" at slightly different times, separated perhaps by fractional nanoseconds.

Film cameras, on the other hand, do not have "sensors" (other than the video tap's sensor), nor do they use pixels, nor do they expose the image left-to-right, nor do they expose the image row-by-row, like CMOS'style rolling shutters do.

Also, whereas in the CMOS digital cameras, what we have is a so-called "electronic shutter," MP film cameras still use what we call "mechanical shutters."

So, to sum it up, Andrew.... the shutter in a Canon 7D is NOT quite like the shutter in an Aaton Penelope, or in fact in any other motion picture camera using celluloid film.

Global shutters and sterility -- now that's a concept I had never, ever heard of. Did you just make it up yourself, perhaps?

Let us see now... I am pretty sure that nobody want so acquire anything at any price with a sterile-looking camera. So that elminiated the Panasonic Varicams, P2s, and all other 3CCD camcorders as well. Correct?

So, that would leave either the CMOS + rolling sensor digital cameras and the equally rolling shutter film cameras as alternatives. Which is your preference from those two kind -- or are there some other capture technologies that I might not have heard of, Andy?

BTW, I am not too clear on this: since you had just told us that both CMOS digital and film cameras employ "rolling shutters," do you suppose that film acquisition is also prone to jello, skew, wobble, bent verticals, flash banding, etc, etc artifacts, just like CMOS sensor video cams and HD-SLRs do?

Quick, quick, someone better give the low-down to the American Society of Cinematogrpahers on this. They better revise their ASC Manual accordingly!

Final Cut sound material.

ISO 100 I think

>using the 100 ISO sensitivity setting in modern DSLR cameras like the 7D is not necessary

This was comment on stills. The other video is part of a review of the 7D as still and video camera.

I think ASA and ISO are the same.