39 replies to this topic

[EOSHD]

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.

 

I'd love to see what your solution is in low light for manageable depth of field. Stop down to F5.6??? I don't think so! Also there are no PL mount adapters on the 5D Mark III. Mirror in the way and sensor too large for most Super35mm lenses.

[FilmMan]

@ScreenPro,

I own Canon (including L), Zeiss (ZE) and Leica lenses.  IMO, Canon lenses are not the top of the food chain - they are good.

[FilmMan]

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.

Yep.  Sums it up very well!  Cheers.

[hmcindie]

I'd love to see what your solution is in low light for manageable depth of field. Stop down to F5.6??? I don't think so! Also there are no PL mount adapters on the 5D Mark III. Mirror in the way and sensor too large for most Super35mm lenses.

 

I have no problems shooting f1.4 with the 5d mark III. I really wonder about the skill of people who can't do it.

 

Yes, it is quite difficult with a 70-200mm but with a 50mm it's already quite manageable and looks absolutely great in lowlight.

 

I haven't used the FS100 but the 5dmarkIII is better in lowlight than the FS700 I used. Same shooting locations, 30mm f1.4 on the FS700 and +30dB gain = unusable. ISO 10 000 on the 5dmarkIII was usable if the shadows were slightly pushed down.

 

I also wonder about some of those comments about shadow noise and compression issues. Granted, I usually shoot at intermediate ISOs which tend to be quite clean. But I get absolutely great shadow noise. For example the shadow noise with the FS700 is quite bad in higher ISOs. It gets blotchy and murky. Same with the nex-5n although even worse. You can push it down with the FS700 because the dynamic range is off-the-charts but with the nex-5n you can't.

 

Everything depends on which you compare it to. If I would compare it to the Alexa and BMC then yeah... it's not as sharp or detailed and has more compression artifacts. But when doing an actual shortfilm or musicvideo, I feel that the positives really outweigh the negatives. When I got the 7d I was like "you know...if they fix the aliasing, moire and less compression...I would never need another camera". The 5dmkIII basically did it. I have no need for anything better, until there is a significant difference. BMC looks to be great but I can't use RAW anyway until I have lots and lots of cash to burn.

 

Plus stills. I've fallen in love with full-frame photography.

[jgharding]

Agreeing with Film Man I reckon. my lens love order goes Leica, then Zeiss, then bizarre simple old bits from Russia etc. Canon is my last resort, I just don't really like how they look, it's kinda dead... though that dirt cheap plastic 50mm actually looks nice, even though it's horrible to use!

[ScreensPro]

Almost every good STILLS camera has an articulated screen nowadays.

 

hahahahahahaha

[ScreensPro]

I'd love to see what your solution is in low light for manageable depth of field. Stop down to F5.6??? I don't think so! Also there are no PL mount adapters on the 5D Mark III. Mirror in the way and sensor too large for most Super35mm lenses.

 

A full frame sensor will suck up far more light than an s35 or m4/3 equivalent... So stopping down (at full frame) just levels the playing field a bit. Having FF is only a benefit, when you talk about low light shooting.

 

even if you decide to open up to,say f1.4.... at least full frame gives you that option. On your s35 and m4/3 equivalents, you will need faster (and often expensive) lenses and, therefore, shallower DOF..  just as hard to control focus.

 

this is basic stuff.

 

also... With improvements in ISO.... Stopping down in low light becomes a usable option.

[ScreensPro]

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

 

When did i mention the 5dII?

 

I said the DR on a 5diii is better than a gh2....which it is.

[FilmMan]

Agreeing with Film Man I reckon. my lens love order goes Leica, then Zeiss, then bizarre simple old bits from Russia etc. Canon is my last resort, I just don't really like how they look, it's kinda dead... though that dirt cheap plastic 50mm actually looks nice, even though it's horrible to use!

My findings too.  Cheers.

[EOSHD]

I have no problems shooting f1.4 with the 5d mark III. I really wonder about the skill of people who can't do it.

 

Yes, it is quite difficult with a 70-200mm but with a 50mm it's already quite manageable and looks absolutely great in lowlight.

 

I haven't used the FS100 but the 5dmarkIII is better in lowlight than the FS700 I used. Same shooting locations, 30mm f1.4 on the FS700 and +30dB gain = unusable. ISO 10 000 on the 5dmarkIII was usable if the shadows were slightly pushed down.

 

If you push the shadows down that is the same as lowering the ISO. So what you mean is that ISO 10,000 is too noisy and you push it down to 6400 to get acceptable results. This is why crushing the blacks works so well at ISO 12,800 on the GH2 in black and white. CMOS sensors have a signal to noise ratio per pixel and if your signal is high enough it masks the noise which is why well exposed bright areas of the image are cleaner even at ISO 12,800. Think of a raw image at the native ISO of 800, it will look noiseless over areas of a shot where the luminosity only requires ISO 200, and where the light is dim you need to adjust the curve to bring up the shadows and that is where you see noise.

 

The 50mm at F1.4 remark is a bit odd. There's a reason most films are shot stopped down to T5.6 as a default. You need a margin of error and for when something is moving back and forth quickly you certainly can't keep them perfectly in focus 100% of the time at F1.4, not even a ninja focus puller can do that on ALL types of movement. Some movement is random and you cannot account for it. With a locked down shot, of course F1.4 is fine. For most stuff, your actors will be going in and out of focus especially at closer focus distances, which is often not what you want.

 

I use very fast apertures a lot but only for locked down shots where there's no focus racking.

[EOSHD]

A full frame sensor will suck up far more light than an s35 or m4/3 equivalent... So stopping down (at full frame) just levels the playing field a bit. Having FF is only a benefit, when you talk about low light shooting.

 

Incorrect. It isn't the size of the sensor but the size of the pixels and the pixel design architecture which matter the most. This is why the FS100 is better than the full frame 5D Mark III in low light.

 

This is also why the Red Dragon sensor is rated for ISO 2500 native and is better in low light than the MX sensor despite being Super 35mm and yet higher resolution.

 

 

even if you decide to open up to,say f1.4.... at least full frame gives you that option. On your s35 and m4/3 equivalents, you will need faster (and often expensive) lenses and, therefore, shallower DOF..  just as hard to control focus.

 

this is basic stuff.

 

also... With improvements in ISO.... Stopping down in low light becomes a usable option.

 

Again FS100 far better in low light than the 5D Mark III.

 

 

Also you have the option of a T0.95 aperture if you need it (SLR Magic 50mm HyperPrime) and the fastest aperture on the 5D is F1.2. The EF 50mm F1.0 exists but is not realistic to obtain on the general market.

[EOSHD]

I said the DR on a 5diii is better than a gh2....which it is.

 

They're about the same actually.

[ScreensPro]

They're about the same actually.

 

I disagree, but I'm not gonna continue arguing, people should make their own tests.

 

The GH2 is a cool camera and has an ok DR.... It's plenty usable.

[ScreensPro]

I should have been clearer..... If all other things are equal, a FF sensor is better for low light

 

also, if the lens f stops and focal lengths are equivalent... focusing will be just as hard/easy, regardless of the sensor size.

[nigelbb]

I should have been clearer..... If all other things are equal, a FF sensor is better for low light

 

also, if the lens f stops and focal lengths are equivalent... focusing will be just as hard/easy, regardless of the sensor size.

Only if you are comparing the same Field of View. At F/1.4 there is more DoF on a smaller sensor but then the FoV is wider so if you move nearer to have the same FoV then the DoF will be the same.

[gravitatemediagroup]

Search youtube for episode 15 gh2 dynamic range myth and this argument may be ended.

[BurnetRhoades]

Search youtube for episode 15 gh2 dynamic range myth and this argument may be ended.

 

I get whiplash from this video because I'm expecting, based on the title and tone that he's set out to prove the GH2 isn't as good as people say.  In the end, no, he's saying it's awesome too which begs the question has there ever been a rumor of significant momentum that the GH2 didn't live up to its hype, in terms of pure motion picture quality and untouchable value? 

 

Anyhoo, I liked his video shooting locked to the "Indoor" WB for everything.  I've been reading through so many ASC archives lately that I forget now which director/dp combo it was but I was reminded of his WB video when it said the director preferred not shooting with an 85 filter for tungsten stock when shooting outdoors.  Film has way more latitude to correct afterwards of course but it was still interesting to read and compare it to the rumor that was floated around post-T2 that the "look" created for future Cameron films was born from accidentally forgetting the 85 filter and then shooting to match.

[Germy1979]

I haven't messed with the 5D3, but the 6D impressed the hell out of me this last weekend. In terms of Low Light at 12,000+ iso, it saw more than we did and it was clean. I never saw the banding issues that everyone talked about regarding Cinestyle, so I can't comment other than I always got better results with it, than without it. Aliasing is an issue on the 6D though apparently, even though I didn't notice it, I didn't point it at power lines or bricks either. Maybe if these cameras were a little cheaper, people would be more forgiving... Since it gets compared to the $500 Gh2... lol.

[pgre]

After using 5DMKIII, 7D's, 60Ds and now investing in an FS100 I guess it depends what you're doing with it.

I have been doing more and more commercial projects and what we may see as missing features or poor quality video or various issues.. they don't really care. 

 

Many customers I have worked with simply say shallow depth of field please... and thats the end of it.

 

It's always a fascinating debate though..

[endlessthoughtsmedia]

Ive now had my 5D3 for about 2 weeks, I finally bought it and I love it amazing to have it as a tool in my bag, but thats all it is a tool. I beats in my mind every dslr out there well except the 1DC but thats on a new level.