Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
Canon 5D Mark III topic
  • 240 Replies sorted by
  • JDNJDN

    @cafeteriacarlos no worries, sorry, I probably sounded like an ass! Yes, better sound if you run it through a mix pre-d and then into a tascam. Mainly a matter of pre-amps. On field mixer, they are powerful, clean, and on a sound devices one, they come after your limiter/low-cut filter, so you are not amping stuff you want to get rid of (which makes it more difficult to get rid of cleanly). Also you get cleaner, less noisy recording when you can feed a line signal into your external recorder rather than a mic signal, which is what a preamp/mixer allows you to do.

    If you can, just go to a place that stocks one and have a listen -- you'll be amazed.

  • ButtButt

    No - I do not buy 5D III The best thing about the video, the Japanese Model

  • LC_Digital_ArtLC_Digital_Art

    Canon EOS 5D Mark III

  • Manu4VendettaManu4Vendetta

  • Manu4VendettaManu4Vendetta

  • cafeteriacarloscafeteriacarlos

    @ignatius @kholi

    All of the lighting budget in the world won't make your camera body need less lighting to achieve a particular shot. It's worth discussing what we can and cannot do with a camera body before saying it would simply be better to light the shot well. I presume the low-light capabilities would not prevent us from lighting the shot traditionally should we choose to.

    Bad lighting is bad lighting, regardless of whether somebody used existing light or foam core bounced Chimeras. Low-light capabilities appeal to me because they give me the option to light things in many more ways than I would be able to without them.

  • stoneystoney

    5Dmk3 & 24-70 sound nice, but I'm surprised the newly designed EF 24-70 ii doesn't have IS.

  • kholikholi

    @ignatius

    Educate 'em.

    Don't care about shooting under street lamps. Do care about a lower noise floor so that lowlit and moody can happen. Will always use some sort of light control. ALWAYS.

    Even if that means a white piece of paper and shooting at the right time of day.

  • jherojhero

    Interesting

  • ignatiusignatius

    Don't get this low light obsession. Here me out...I welcome it, but I think too many people see it as the be-all and end-all. Footage that isn't lit well looks two dimensional and dull (in my humble, amateur experience). Of course you can play with it in post to a certain extent, but it's better to work with light and shape that light. I get it...lights are expensive...but so is $3500 on the latest camera. A gh2 can be had for a fraction of the price and you could get a decent lighting kit too. You will get a better result overall.

    It's easy to convince yourself that you need the next best thing, but I've come to the realization that my limitations lay within. Doesn't matter how many cameras I buy...every time I film in a poorly lit interior it looks shit. I'm gonna work on the craft and give up the techno rat race. Unless I come into money!

    All the best

  • cafeteriacarloscafeteriacarlos

    Some of you sound like you want 422 more than you want better low-light performance. How many of your clients would really notice the 422 vs 420 difference? Its a feature I want but not something that I think would add tremendous, immediate value to my work.

    It remains to be seen but if the MK 3 gives me the aforementioned 2-stop improvement in low light video, I will see it as quite a success. Usable 6400 or 12800 (stretch on that last one) completely changes the game in so many shooting situations for me.

    @JDN I usually just hire a sound guy so please forgive any sound equipment ignorance. If I purchase a proper mixer/pre-amp and go directly into the camera, does the sound compare to something I'd get from the H4N or Tascam?

  • JDNJDN

    @mrbill -- you nailed it; it's all about the glass. If panny were smart, they'd forget about the the af-100 line and max out the gh3 in a effort to get everyone seriously invested in m43rds glass (ideally, if they get it right, theirs). The rest follows from that, including years of loyalty.

    Re: PCM sound, for any of you thinking this is the solution for better sound, don't. Good sound comes from having a good pre-amp/mixer. The best dslr is only going to be a backup for an external recorder, and the best high end video camera with xlr ins is not ever going to come close to something recorded with a sound devices or equivalent mixer and recorder. Okay, yeah, if you're only doing youtube, yeah yeah yeah. Anything else, buy a proper mixer before you buy a new camera.

    Finally, lets all remember, this is a still camera, and its aimed at people who shoot still pictures. I've just shot a week in the everglades. I go to popular wildlife watching spots. Who is shooting video? Me. And I'm being paid to do it. Who is shooting stills? 5 - 20 people, most of them on 5dmk II's with $3-$10k glass. Once you're that invested in glass, $3k for a new body won't seem like much.

    All that said, I don't want a full frame sensor -- I got enough problems keep focus with my subject moving around. The shift on record is not a big issue. The gh2 while it doesn't advertise being weather proof, from my experience in the field, is basically weather proof (I've put it through things I shouldn't). And at $800 a pop, I will do things with that camera I would not do with a $3.5k camera... and as a result, I get better shots. Also, telephoto performance withe a crop sensor, plus etc, is amazing. My 100-300mm cost $500 -- and for video (not stills, but video) it gets me closer than any full sensor lens under $10K.

  • mrbillmrbill

    @itimjim - I'm quite heavily invested in canon glass. Plus 95MB/s, moiree + aliasing free, great low light performance, extended dynamic range, timecode implementation, an accurate lcd that doesn't alter when I go into record, weather proofing, and the possibility of 4k res hdr timelapse images begins to sound pretty good to me. And it's tax deductible.

  • RamboRambo

    Cannons next line of lenses will not be video friendly either, 5Dmk11/111 is for a specific shot/look. Unless you can afford Canon’s Cinema EOS line of lenses that was release some time ago.

  • pvjamespvjames

    @ignatius: Spot on Ignatius! The next wave will be bigger impact and better bang4buck. We'll see some 4K cams at NAB not just 'announced' or on paper. Its just a matter of time. MkII/GH2 is an incredible combination already. Act of Valor...i mean, that is an incredible MkII film.

    @evero: Yeah, you go down Canon path, they want you for the lenses. I mainly use it for stills/TL. I still think its the wise thing to do to split a camera for stills and video. Rarely need extreme lowlight features since i mainly do outdoor/landscape stuff. It depends on what you want to do.

    @mrbill: yeah, i expect more for 3.5K. But maybe next gen for sure.

  • itimjimitimjim

    @mrbill £3,000 doesn't spell "no brainer" to me.

  • mrbillmrbill

    If they've really got rid of the aliasing and moire then it's a no-brainer, despite the lack of clean HDMI output.

  • Amadeus5D2Amadeus5D2

    @ignatius exactly!

  • soundgh2soundgh2

    Why when I see a 5D do I think of this

    http://snapclicker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ghetto-blaster.jpg

    Do they really have to be so fooken chunky? Lol

  • ignatiusignatius

    The MK III is a great video camera. No question. But so is the GH2 and the 5D MK II before it. People will say "Yeah, but rolling shutter/moire etc". Ok, so you go and buy a MK III and let's say there's absolutely no rolling shutter or moire...great, but within a month everyone will be moaning about 8bit 4:2:0.

    I say fuck canon, don't buy. Work with what you have until the next wave comes along. You can shoot amazing stuff on the old generation, and the one big thing everyone wanted from the new generation has been omitted. It's the only way you can get these bastards to play ball. Everyone wanted canon to step up to the plate, but this is a weak offering after 3 long years. Wait for your wave people because this is just a ripple.

    That is, until we can actually see what the MK III is capable of!

  • everoevero

    Beeing in the GH2 camp, I need to concider the mkIII carefully. For me the qualities comes down to:

    • Low noise and Full frame aesthetics, especially wide angle
    • Less moire, aliasing and rolling shutter (BUT how much less than GH2?... - maybe I'd guess less rolling shutter is the biggest improvement vs. GH2)

    But still, I struggle with these issues:

    • Need to invest in lenses, but the current canon lineup is not very modern/futureproof concidering video ("smooth iris", continious focus etc).
    • No articulating screen. Not having EVF making it even worse. Makes it hard to achieve a compact rig (for docu-style shooting)
    • I often need ND (vari-ND solves parts of it, but built in ND or lower ISO would really be better)

    I find the mkIII a nice upgrade over the mkII, but surprised that Canon didn't do more and I think my listed issues will outweigh the need for full frame aesthetics for now. And I still really enjoy my GH2. It will be interesting to see what possible future cameras like GH3, EOS 4k camera or AF200 will be like.

  • troyjasontroyjason

    agree with edwardm, and would caution that the Canon MK3 is a VBR file as well. Shadows plug and skin tones go to hell very often with VBR shots if it isn't done well.

    We are lucky Driftwood makes CBR hacks for us - very lucky. Sure the file sizes are huge but for short clips it is great knowing that an actor/model closeup won't be mushypixelasspoop.

    I think the Canon MK3 will be great - ill buy one if only because I am looking for a still shooter as well.

    If Nikon were confident in the D800 clean HDMI out they would release an AWESOME sample to blow Canon users away right now....but alas they are silent. So is the D800 HDMI out just a tick box for people to "think" quality will improve. What is Nikon hiding?

  • edwardmedwardm

    The Mk III has a considerable amount of computation firepower with the new Digic 5+ processor on board.

    The Digic 5 is between 5 and 6x faster than the Digic 4 that it replaced and the Digic 5+ is 3x faster than the Digic 5. Canon claims 17x faster than the Digic 4. That is a lot of CPU to improve signal processing, improve video compression, and to solve the moire problem.

    But it remains to be seen just how good the 91 Mbps encoding really is going to be. I have an older Canon that had about a 44 Mbps H.264 encoder but the video compression was awful with artifacts and noise, and my GH-2 at stock low bit rates is far better at encoding.

    I understand Canon added I- and B- frames and AVC - this is probably a newer encoder implementation - but then again, it could just be they doubled the bit rate without improving the algorithms, which would be better but not up to full potential. Looking forward to real video tests!

  • disneytoydisneytoy

    I think this is a smart move for Canon. Every 5D mII user will buy a MIII. Inta and 91mb/s is pretty good. Surely Magic Lantern will eventually add cool features like HDR.

    More importantly, I'm glad we had a timeline like RED Scarlet> C300> 1D Mark IV> Nikon D4> Nikon D800... And hopefully later this year, Sony will have some surprises and our wonderful Panasonic engineers will have 6-8 months more to digest all these announcements. And hopefully we will get some special feature. Come on how about 1080p 60 frames.

    The big features to come out:

    1080p 60 Better rolling shutter (Global Shutter) 4:2:2 10 bit HDR @ 24p (so 48 frames a second) Higher DR P-Log (come on that can't be that hard) 4K (frankly, 2.5K would be very useful and manageable data rate. Allowing reframing and room for post stabilization, plus many computers today already have 2560-by-1440 monitors) Peeking Tethering - external control of ISO, Shutter, Aperture. etc

    All these will come eventually.

  • namtotnamtot

    for $3500 what more is there to expect? but i do agree completely that the c300 should be a hell of alot better given the price tag, or it should be about $6-7 grand. if canon can get image quality out of this thing comparable to the gh2 i think its a pretty bad ass camera.

Add a Comment