Jump to content

Shield3

Members
  • Posts

    367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shield3

  1. I watched this, and clearly the 5d3 walked circles around the "quarter size" sensor. I see a dramatic difference at ISO 6400 - do you not? Might also be "fair" to not use the speed booster as many people getting a GH4 won't be using one. Just sayin'. Yes, you can use fast glass and special adapters to get the micro four thirds sensor to look good at ISO 1600-3200 - but let's see some tests straight out of the camera with each 24-70 equivalent @ F/2.8. The 5d3 will crush the gh4 in low light, period. You have 4x the sensor size - how can you expect anything else? It's physics...
  2. Also, it's been my experience that the Canon just does a much better job with skin tones. Of course, one cannot ignore the 96FPS of the Panny either. If a speedbooster was released today for MFT - EF mount, I'd buy a GH4. I don't want two "systems"...
  3. Yep. Also keep in mind he graded this in Resolve; I've used Resolve and Adobe After effects with the ACR. The latter does a much better job IMO with the raw dng files. Then once you factor in how much better the 5d3 is for shooting sports with the 61 pt AI Servo AF, and also the fact there's no speed booster for EF glass - it's a no brainer if you already have the 5d3 + EF lenses. If you're starting with nothing, it's not as easy of a choice. But I like wide and full frame, so make mine Canon for now....
  4. Because I'm looking for the "all in one" do it all camera. The A7/a7r/a7s can't do sports, the GH4's stills are nowhere near full frame quality for DOF control, I can't use my EF lenses very quickly with them (no aperture control / AF). Neither of these shoot raw video. The 5d3 is the best all-arounder - can do sports, large lens choices, raw video, deep buffer for burst, and with ML - focus peaking, zebras, timelapse wihout shutter acuations. You do give up some low ISO dynamic range but you certainly can push the raw stills and video around quite a bit in post - and both in raw. God forbid you screw up the white balance with the a7 or gh4 before a video shot. Good luck getting that back...:)
  5. Clearly you've never shot or processed RAW video so I'll forgive your ignorance - I've been shooting raw since May of last year. With Adobe ACR / After effects workflow, one grades only ONE image - the first in a sequence - then outputs the file. Huge difference between that - which is computer intensive to render - vs. having 500 raw 74MB files to process one at a time in Lightroom. Raw video has gotten much simpler over time, and now even the audio syncs up. Raw video workflow - Run MLVbrowsesharp - point to mlv sequence - unpack .wav and dng to folder - open in After effects, ACR first image, output file of choice. Now tell me how much work you have to do to grade all those 36MP files from the D800.
  6. At low ISO's, sure. But once you go above 3200 the Canon wins. Watch this video: Also: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml At 1600 ISO, the noise has become more obvious on the D800 and for the first time in this sequence I'd say the Mark III has begun to take a lead - albeit extremely small at this point - in resolution. The Canon crop is also considerably cleaner. At 3200 ISO, noise textures start to become obvious on the Mark III, but remain much lower than those on the D800. Edges on the Canon are also much better defined than the Nikon at this point. At 6400 ISO the gap widens as the D800 becomes very noisy viewed at 1:1, with edges becoming quite poorly defined. The Mark III certainly isn't noise-free at this point, but remains much cleaner and better-defined. The story continues at 12800 and 25600 ISO, the maximum for the D800. I'd say at these higher sensitivities the Mark III enjoys around a two stop advantage over the D800 when both are shooting at their maximum resolutions and viewed at 1:1. Certainly the 12800 sample of the Mark III is quite usable at smaller sizes, whereas the D800 is looking pretty ropey at this point. The Mark III then goes on to bravely offer 51200 and 102400 ISO options, but both suffer from considerable noise and lack of both detail and saturation. They're nothing to be excited about unless you're in an emergency situation. So this test panned-out as expected: the D800 wins on detail at low sensitivities, while the 5D Mark III wins on noise levels and cleaner output at higher sensitivities.
  7. "Stills of course are a lot better. 2 stops more dynamic range and 7K / 36MP images vs 5K / 22Mp on the 5D Mark III." ...unless you actually want to shoot something moving - I'd prefer the 6FPS and the 61 pt AF and tracking of the 5d3. With the same 1000x card I shoot 5d3 raw with I can rattle off 30-32 shots in a row. Also at high ISO the 5d3 is better. Not everyone shoot single shot landscapes and stationary objects.
  8. There still just isn't the perfect stills/video camera. In my mind the Canon 5d3 w/raw still wins as the closest to the perfect camera though - for stills it easily beats these two for AF tracking, continuous burst and resolution. I can't see myself shooting indoor sports with either the GH4 or the A7s. For video, I prefer wider angle, full frame and raw. I shoot mostly people and prefer the skin tones of the Canon. If I was interested in 4k I might look at one of these cameras, but I'm too heavily invested in Canon glass to make a switch. I shoot about 50/50 stills and video. The downsides/frustrations for me are: GH4: Why no in body IS? Even the GX7 has it. Where's a really good adapter for micro-four thirds to EF mount? Why have the headphone/microphone jacks on the left side so they get in the way when you fold out the screen? The low light will never touch a modern FF camera, and the stills are just "meh". Never been in love with the skin colors from my multiple GH2's. Great resolution and fun camera to shoot video with though. A7s: Not really impressed with having to purchase an external recorder. Very slow 2.5 FPS for stills with 1/2 the resolution of the 5d3, and just a handful of native FE lenses (no 2.8 zooms or fast primes other than a medium speed 55/1.8. I realize the whole point is to be small. I wouldn't be surprised if this thing overheats shooting 1080p internally, and Sony is known to have pretty lousy customer service and pretty much no "professional" services for still cameras. Since I'm not interested in 4k, I'm not sure either of these cameras are anywhere close to a great all-arounder like my 5d3 + raw, especially now that the MLV format the onboard audio syncs up perfectly. Might pick one up for a 2nd body but there's no way to get fast stills AF with my EF glass with either of these.
  9. "Then there’s crop mode, built in EVF, articulated screen, all good features which are missing from the raw shooting 5D Mark III," Crop mode is missing from 5d3? Funny, I shoot this way all the time. 3x zoom works just great in raw mode.
  10. Good afternoon Andrew. In this article you state: "Is the 4GB file size a limitation? Thankfully no, with future build of Magic Lantern you can go until the card is full as the 5D Mark III supports the more modern ExFat file system for larger files than 4GB. Already people have recorded long takes of raw video in a single 12GB file!" Isn't it true the neither the Windows/MAC version of raw2dng.exe support files over 4GB? I have read even with the "raw_rec.mo" file the allows recordings larger than 4GB that you need LINUX to extract the dng files.
  11. It appears that the 5d3 "sharpened" has much more detail than the FS100; at least the 1:03 to 1:04 mark.  Look at the differences in detail in the snow as well as the trees on the left.  We all sharpen (at least everyone I know) our 5d3 footage; why not just always include that? Thanks, Shawn
×
×
  • Create New...