Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Canon 5D Mark iii after working with it.

Canon Canon 5d 5d3 5D

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 endlessthoughtsmedia

endlessthoughtsmedia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:35 PM

Well after working with the new Canon 5D Mark iii a few times this weekend I have to say for me, its a hell of a lot better hands down then any other Canon DSLR, except for the 1DX because I have not had the time with that camera to really tell. I have to wonder though about the HDMI out update that is coming. I'm now looking at buying a 5D3 soon but would like to know what you guys think this upgrade will bring. One other thing is why is in April, could we see maybe the new 7D with the same function at the same time. Will we see 60p added? Will the HDMI add more detail, I know most of you will say no but maybe Canon will add some code that will allow more detail in clean recording off the HDMI. 

So if any of you care to read this is what I think of the 5D Mark 3. Im an action sports photographer and also now starting digital cinema work. I own just Canon DSLR and GoPros but I have buddy's who own other cameras and I have used them. They include the RED Scarlet and Epic, Sony FS700, Nikion D800, Canon C300, and Canon 1DX.

Let me state this also off the bat, I don't believe we need 4K right now but it is coming and will be the main thing in 5 years time. Canon is going to have to step it up if they want to fight with other cameras.

So first is the big fact that I was worried about, Detail. Well we all know it lacks in detail but can be sharpened up in Post to look cleaner, the clips I shot I did this on and it works great. Also I shot 1080 30p and 720 60p both in ALL-I Codec. On my 17 inch laptop the clips look fine and most people loved em. When then sharpened and put on a 65 inch LCD. I thought wow. That looks clean when sitting about 7 feet away. So really this isnt a problem to me. The RED and Sony FS700 are better no doubt but really not huge to me ( of course 4K is nuts on the RED) Also for the people out there that are comparing this to a T2i and saying its the same in good light, well kinda but once you go into post and sharpen it and color and finish. The 5D for me kills the 7D and t2i.

Next would be the Camera it self, Its built like a tank in my mind. I have no problem putting it in the dirt and shooting motocross or Off Road Racing. Its feels great in the hand when shooting photos which I wont go into detail but the photos are amazing and has huge upgrades, this is the main reason for me to buy it. The focus and ISO is just wow. When shooting this weekend we had an LCD viewfinder and a 5 inch HD Screen on a DSLR Cage. Both are good but depends on you and what you are doing. The HDMI out at the current stage helps alot with focusing. For me I loved the Camera in a Cage with Screen on top that you can move around. We even said if the HDMI out is great we can get a Black Magic Shuttle and just mount it on the Cage in this set-up and then run the HDMI out to the screen and still have a small set-up for moving around. 

So one other thing I want to say is that everyone is saying why get a 5D when you can get a Black Magic Cinema Camera. I'm not saying anything bad but for me the 5D is better, also I see alot of people saying its great for 3 grand, too bad its just like a RED at 3 grand. In order to get one really going it will take 6 to 8 grand in my mind to make one work. I've also seen the footage and yes while its RAW and amazing to some. I dont have time to edit RAW for every project we do and I don't have the storage for the Uncompressed. Now if Black Magic can buy Cineform or make a compressed RAW , add 60p , and fix the firmware with what much of Philip Bloom said, then I can see my self getting one. 

So all in all, I love the new 5D. Its light powerful and a great film making tool when you need to run around and carry all your stuff in a back pack or travel light. The images after grading are great. Here are the full settings we used most of the time so you can get a idea.

1080 or 720 ALL-I, all 720 was upscaled to 1080p
CineStyle Pic Style
Our shutter was faster then most at about 1/200 or around there. 
Iso was about 100 160 most of the time for film. 

If you have any questions just let me know. If you disagree I would love to hear why just to get a different view on a subject.


  • Zach likes this

#2 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

I feel a bit sorry for Canon.... The 5DIII got a bashing from alot of people.....

 

But the most vocal comments about the 5DII were as follows:

 

Fix the moire - done

Fix the aliasing - done

Fix the jello - better

Better codec - done

Headphone out - done

 

Very few people were crying about the resolution when the 5DII launched and was being used in top productions.... Yet that one flaw is now magnified out of all proportions... Partly due to the craze for 4K and new formats like 2.7k and 2.5k... even though the vast majority of shooters will not need it yet and the vast, vast, vast majority of clients and viewers will be very happy (unless they sit 1ft from the screens).

 

The 5DIII is a great camera, a huge upgrade from the 5DII in terms of stills... and ticks alot of boxes for video.

 

As for the HDMI output.... It should make a bit of difference when you grade. You should see improvements in banding too.


  • Zach likes this

#3 endlessthoughtsmedia

endlessthoughtsmedia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 11:34 PM

Ya I saw and still see a ton of bashing from people, and yes its sorta soft but not as bad as people make it. I have a buddy who owns a RED Epic and uses the 5D3 also on every production. His clients want 1080p most of the time and in his footage you cant tell it apart most of the time. 



#4 hmcindie

hmcindie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 298 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 09:30 AM

It's not even that extremely soft. It just lacks a lot of artificial sharpening out of the box. Which is actually great for independent and low budget filmmakers without that much experience. Vincent Laforet wrote an excellent blog which also highlights a lot of problems about 4k especially for low budget filmmakers. And HFR.

 

http://blog.vincentl...cinema-magical/

 

The 5D3 and fullframe give a somewhat magical look that you don't get with sharp smaller sensor cams. I got more interesting shots with my 5D3 as a b-cam than the FS700 as an a-cam.



#5 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

The 5DIII was not the huge step forward that some would like.... But it was a functional upgrade... Giving us fixes for the main problems of DLSR shooting.

 

Unfortunately, people have bought into the "1080p is not enough" line that RED sold..... and rather than push for 10bit, 4:2:2 and better DR etc... We are dragged back into a resolution war (one that might never go mainstream).

 

For 99% of us.. at least those who's work is aimed at TV viewers.... the 5DIII resolution is fine.



#6 Bruno

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 708 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:53 PM

Fix the moire - done

Fix the aliasing - done

Fix the jello - better

Better codec - done

Headphone out - done

 

I agree with that, the 5D mk3 was a pretty decent update. Personally I prefer an APS-C sized sensor, so if they add the same improvements on the 7D plus 1080 60fps (and HDMI out), then I think it will be a great camera as well.

 

If you look at Super 35mm film scans, they don't look that sharp at 2k, they always need some kind of sharpening to make them shine (just comparing sharpness here, not dynamic range or image characteristics).

 

You can find sharper cameras out there but that could also bring up some aliasing issues, and Canon still has the best color in DSLRs.

 

It's also true they've been kind of slow and holding back though, but yes, the 5D3 is probably the best video DSLR out there.



#7 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,734 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 01:07 AM

Aside from being cleaner at high ISOs and having less moire & aliasing, the video quality of the 5D Mark III isn't any different to the 5D Mark II and we waited over 3 years for it. Do you guys really think that is progress?

The 5D Mark II and the 5D before it blazed a trail. The first affordable full frame camera, then the first full frame video mode.

So I was expecting innovation again. We didn't get it.

720p HDMI output, and not clean. They said the hardware couldn't do it. We now know this isn't true. No articulated screen. They said it would compromise weather proofing. Also not true, since the OM-D and GH3 are weather proof and have articulated screens. No 1080/60p. New codec, but it isn't much of an improvement over the old one. Still a lot of compression noise in the mids and lows, banding, 4:2:0 colour sampling, 8 bit very hard to go back to after you use the Blackmagic. Then there was the price at launch - a good deal higher than the Nikon D800 for less image quality.

All the criticism is justified.

The argument over whether it is capable of lovely images or not is a different thing. Every camera is capable of that in the right hands.

 

If it wasn't for the Canon lens mount I'd be a D800 user by now.



#8 Bruno

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 708 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 01:29 AM

It wasn't revolutionary, but it was a big improvement over the mk2.

The iPhone updates have been way less revolutionary and it doesn't stop people from buying them like there's no tomorrow, not every product can have that effect, if they knew how to do it they'd do it every time!

 

The video quality has seen improvements, it's not just the noise. The color and overall image of the mk2 in low light is considerably worse, and the codec even though still not perfect or ideal was also a huge improvement.

 

The thing is, so many DSLR cameras came out this year, so many seemed to finally have got it right, from every single brand, and in the end the 5D mk3 is still up there. I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm just saying that no matter how much better it could have been, no one else has matched it yet (the BMCC is not a DSLR).



#9 GravitateMediaGroup

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:38 AM

Any thoughts on the D6?  I am really considering this camera and was wondering how it compares to the MKIII as far as video quality.

 

I  just purchased a nikon d600 last night and probably going to return it, I just wanted to get some hands on before making a final decision.  I keep reading about dust & oil issues on the sensor of the d600 but I've not noticed anything (yet)  What I do like is a $600 lens came with it, very nice picture quality,  full frame, feels solid, and MUCH improved video quality over the d7000, which I also currently own and going to sell lol  It actually shoots fairly stabilized video handheld, but that may have something to do with full frame and I'm used to gh2 earthquake footage.  A few complaints so far is some moire, and no ability to control aperture in video mode, have to set it in picture mode first. 

 

I am also curious about the t4i, the tracking focus seems like it would come in handy with my glidecam.My plan is to sell my panny tm900 to buy the t4i.  But not sure if the t4i would be a waste of time.  On paper it seems legit, and with magic lantern (not sure if it's available yet) should make it a pretty nice camera.

 

Any input, or other options I should look into would be appreciated, thanks.

 

ps.  the $1600 Mark II deal doing around has caught my eye as well, but I personally think the 6D would be better.



#10 nahua

nahua

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • LocationHawaii

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:34 AM

It wasn't revolutionary, but it was a big improvement over the mk2.

The iPhone updates have been way less revolutionary and it doesn't stop people from buying them like there's no tomorrow, not every product can have that effect, if they knew how to do it they'd do it every time!

 

The video quality has seen improvements, it's not just the noise. The color and overall image of the mk2 in low light is considerably worse, and the codec even though still not perfect or ideal was also a huge improvement.

 

The thing is, so many DSLR cameras came out this year, so many seemed to finally have got it right, from every single brand, and in the end the 5D mk3 is still up there. I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm just saying that no matter how much better it could have been, no one else has matched it yet (the BMCC is not a DSLR).

Working with the mosquito noise of the 5dmkIII just drives me batty.  After going with the GH2 w/ Flow Motion Hack, it's very hard to go back to the 5dmkIII.  Sure you get nice images, but the GH2 and GH3 are just so much better for video.  I've pretty much retired my 5dmkIII to photos only.  And forget about shooting ISO 6400 or worse.  Unless you want to be showcasing some night owls or something, practically it's useless.


  • Mirrorkisser likes this

#11 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 11:16 AM

 No articulated screen. They said it would compromise weather proofing. Also not true, since the OM-D and GH3 are weather proof and have articulated screens.

 

You realise the 5DIII is the top selling, full frame STILLS camera.

 

They would lose millions if they stuck on an articulated screen. The stills shooters would go nuts.

 

You really need to look at the bigger picture.... It is a stills camera.



#12 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 11:21 AM

a good deal higher than the Nikon D800 for less image quality.

 

So... you'd prefer moire and aliasing over a small drop in resolution and maybe 1/2 stop less DR?

 

Again, look at the bigger picture... Think about real world work scenarios that alot of us have to deal with.

 

The 5DIII is the best (maybe 2nd behind the 1D-X) on the market.



#13 endlessthoughtsmedia

endlessthoughtsmedia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:56 PM

Right people tend to forget that this camera is made mainly for stills. And what a stills monster it is. Its the main reason for me like I said but if you know what you are doing and have good glass, It makes for a great little cinema camera. I know its not a gh2 or gh3 or blackmagic...but if you want that, then go buy one. Simple. 



#14 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:05 PM

unless you are obsessed with resolution... It is much nicer than the GH2.

 

Colour rendition, DR and low light are way better. I'd happily shoot a short on a 5DIII

 

People get too caught up with paper specs.... Same reason the C300 gets a bashing. If you couldn't make a feature, ready for big screen release, on a C300... You can forget doing it on any other camera too.



#15 Ernesto Mántaras

Ernesto Mántaras

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, Argentina

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:41 PM

Some of us don't like such a shallow depth of field, though. If there was a camera like the 5DIII that had a Super35 or MFT sensor and a more friendly mount (again, like a MFT mount, but that comes with the sensor) then I'd return to Canon.


Sites:   @Vimeo   |   @Facebook   |   @Twitter

SIGNATURE_THIN.gif

 


#16 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:22 PM

Just stop the lens down.

 

I generally shoot f/4 or f/5.6 when using full frame.

 

As for the mount... Canon has the best still lenses, by far (other than the super high end stuff)... You can also get Nikon and PL mounts,plus a few other.... Plenty of choice.



#17 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,734 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:54 PM

It wasn't revolutionary, but it was a big improvement over the mk2.

The iPhone updates have been way less revolutionary and it doesn't stop people from buying them like there's no tomorrow, not every product can have that effect, if they knew how to do it they'd do it every time!

 

You don't wait 3 years inbetween iPhone updates.

 

The video quality has seen improvements, it's not just the noise. The color and overall image of the mk2 in low light is considerably worse, and the codec even though still not perfect or ideal was also a huge improvement.

 

How is the codec a huge improvement? Image quality where regards the codec (and the difference it should make) is almost identical to the 5D Mark II.



#18 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,734 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:55 PM

You realise the 5DIII is the top selling, full frame STILLS camera.

 

They would lose millions if they stuck on an articulated screen. The stills shooters would go nuts.

 

You really need to look at the bigger picture.... It is a stills camera.

 

Talking about stating the bloody obvious.

 

But you are missing the point as usual. A great deal many customers use it to shoot video and so the lack of improvement in image quality and functionality relative to much cheaper DSLRs was a let down.

 

The 60D has an articulated screen and photographers love it. Helpful not just for video on a tripod but for stills too. Almost every good STILLS camera has an articulated screen nowadays.



#19 Ernesto Mántaras

Ernesto Mántaras

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, Argentina

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:56 PM

But they're also the most expensive, and their focus rings are servos, motorized ones. That's why a lot of people fancy Carl Zeiss lenses for video, which are way more expensive still.

I love having a wide lens choice. I can put anything I want in front of my GH2. And the focus rings on the vintage lenses or the Voigtlanders are awesome.

On the other hand, I shoot a lot of low light, and although I light most of my stuff, it'd take a lot of light to get a good exposure at night with the lens stopped down at f/5.6. 17.5mm @ f/0.95 is beautiful.


  • nahua likes this

Sites:   @Vimeo   |   @Facebook   |   @Twitter

SIGNATURE_THIN.gif

 


#20 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,734 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:58 PM

unless you are obsessed with resolution... It is much nicer than the GH2.

 

Colour rendition, DR and low light are way better. I'd happily shoot a short on a 5DIII

 

People get too caught up with paper specs.... Same reason the C300 gets a bashing. If you couldn't make a feature, ready for big screen release, on a C300... You can forget doing it on any other camera too.

 

The dynamic range is better than the MKII and GH2? Really? I don't see it.

 

The highlights blow slightly sooner than the MkII and the shadows are horrendously noisy compared to the FS100 at ALL ISOs.

 

And CineStyle is crap. Horrible colour and banding.

 

I've used the Mk II for 3 years on and off, Mk III for 1 year and GH2 for 2 years, so to say I am going of paper specs is bullshit my friend.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Canon, Canon 5d, 5d3, 5D

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users