Jump to content

jonjak2

Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    jonjak2 got a reaction from JHines in I'm not seeing the 5D Mark III "softness" that everyone is talking about   
    [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346003207' post='16514']
    Undeniably Gale did a great job on House. There are also some very nice cut aways in modern blockbusters to 5D footage, usually as a crash cam.

    However why cripple yourself now better cameras are out for the same money?

    Look at what you gain vs what you lose, if you went for the 5D Mark III over the BMC.

    You'd gain:

    Wide angle faster than F2.8
    Stills
    Usable ISO above 3200

    You'd lose:

    12 bit colour
    4-2-2 sampling
    Nearly half your resolution (600 lines vs nearly 1000+)
    Raw codec
    Larger built in screen
    HD-SDI
    XLR
    Da Vinci Resolve (it comes in the box)
    $500 cheaper

    I believe the BMC is by far the better deal. We don't need to catch up to Canon, we need to catch up to Blackmagic and so do they.

    What people don't realise very often about the large sensor in the 5D Mark III is that it only has ONE advantage - the way it renders a lens. Shallower DOF all else equal (which is not actually what you always want on every shoot, every scene, every shot) and more choice of lenses at wide angle. It doesn't give any of the dynamic range, resolution or low light advantage in video mode that the sensor is capable of in stills mode.

    The Blackmagic's image shits all over the 5D Mark III. The only thing it can't do by comparison is 24mm F1.4 and ISO above 3200.

    13 stops of dynamic range for $3000 is a much bigger deal than a full frame sensor which is crippled by a dreadful image processor and dated codec.
    [/quote]

    The BMC is a 'better' camera on paper, fine. But how many people have even got the best out of the MKII yet? Who cares about 12 bit vs 8 bit if you can't even make 8 bit look good in the first place. Until you can produce images as good as House, what's the point in arguing about how much better the BMC is? If producing good cinematography isn't your aim then yes, but if you're serious about cinematography it's quite clear that even the MKII is way ahead of the skills of a lot of shooters. People are fixated with specs but they can't even make the 5D look great! Isn't that where the energy should go? The BMC shits all over the 5D? Show me some of your work that shits over the episode of House that Gale Tattersall shot, or something that comes even close!

    You're clearly biased against the 5D and losing the ability to be objective. You got bullied by it in school and can't get over your resentment. It's the camera you fell in love with and now it's gone off with the cute football player. It's not the camera that's letting you down man! You've projected your need onto it and it hasn't met your expectations, shit happens. Still cuts in with an Alexa though so it's not all bad for a £2.5K camera.

    Why make it 5DMKIII vs BMC? Stop trying to get your revenge man! They're two totally different cameras that do different things. One is a STILLS camera that happens to do amazing video in the right hands. The other is a low end cinema camera capable of groundbreaking images for the price, both have drawbacks.
  2. Like
    jonjak2 got a reaction from JHines in I'm not seeing the 5D Mark III "softness" that everyone is talking about   
    [quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1345826566' post='16426']
    You choose to ignore the point that I made that straight out of the camera the 5D3 is no softer than the 5D2. It doesn't have the moire & aliasing of the 5D2 either. With a bit of sharpening in post it looks even better. It doesn't necessarily require work in post as it's all a matter of taste. All these cameras have good & bad points. The soft look of the 5Ds can either good or bad depending on the shot. The GH2 has horrible ergonomics & the FS100 isn't a shining example either unless you are used to the overcomplicated fussiness of Sony cameras covered with little buttons. The 5D3 is a perfectly decent camera for shooting video. It is in all ways better than the 5D2 that everyone knows & (mostly) loves. I don't care if the image out of the GH2 has a higher resolution as people don't look as nice as they do when filmed with a 5D2/5D3.
    [/quote]

    Andrew is biased towards the GH2, and has a real bitterness towards Canon for not producing the camera he wanted. He seems to prefer resolution over most things. It's an aesthetic taste. Surprising because the 5D3 can produce wonderful images that cut in really nicely with an Alexa. When this point is brought up by people who actually do this, it is ignored, so take that for what it's worth. This might be my last post, because people are also banned from this forum for voicing this opinion and accused of trolling.
×
×
  • Create New...