bigdaddy

not exactly sure the point of this comparison with regard to sharpness, other than both shots are soft. first of all, the 24 - 105 is a great and versatile lens for run and gun video but noway a sharp lens. the videographer of this demo, should have selected, for example, a prime, say the 35 - which is an incredibly sharp lens… might be one of the sharpest they make.  however, on this comparison video, it NO WHERE resembles anything i've currently shot with this lens on my 5d mk III. unless you are able to color, edit and playback in 2, 4k world, picking apart differences in sharpness with a 900 dollar lens is moot. broadcast TV is 1080.59.94 or worse, 720p. most of TV is cut and mastered in Avid and spit out to tape or QT at avid's dnx 145. therefore, 2k, 4k doesn't matter. so one's focus should be on what camera holds up best in avid at this compression - sharpness matters, YES, but it should not be at the top of the list when looking to buy a HDSLR camera. i've been editing high-end broadcast TV for over 17 years. i can tell you from my perspective, that the mk II, mkIII holds up easily with RED, F3 and Alexa. of course, you can tell the differences, usually with regards to lenses - fifty grand piece of glass on that alexa makes a difference and most can pick that out. however, for me it's about color, noise in blacks and low light images. hands down the mkIII is a game changer with regards to that. it easily holds if not exceeds in the avid timeline with bigger, more expensive cameras. i have not seen sharpness being a factor. in fact, too much sharpness translates into looking a little too much like video - which is a sony thing.