Will the the 5dMKIII come close to c300?

[thome]

Just read the press release and wondering why cannon would release two cameras within a short time?Im almost buying the C300 and now im wondering if i should wait??

[alpi69]

depends what you mean by "close"
- MOJO:YES
- resolution: NO
- sensitivity: MAYBE
- DR: NO
- CODEC: NO
- handling on set: NO
- price-value: YES, but depends

What I mean: it will look great, it might not have the resolution, but if you go for the baked in look and don´t need a 422 codec you will be fine. For me the biggest difference is the handling on set. It is the reason why I paid 10.000 more for it. I want a real viewfinder, I want everything in one piece, I want good audio, I want to make sure I am in focus on set and not wait until I am in the NLE.
I wrote I WANT, not I need, because I got away with the 7D for a while, but first f all shooting DSLR as a professional cameraman is just a terrible experience from the work-standpoint. As nice as the images are, it is just harder than it ought to be to judge focus and record audio. Add the post-workflow, variable frame rates and dynamic range of the C300 and it is very easily the much better camera. And by much I mean 4x better...for me.

EDIT: one more thing: I don´t know how much gear you have, but calculate all the items you will need to get a workable camera-setup with the 5D and then look at the pricedifference again (ND filters, audio devices etc)

[Osslund]

12 stops from the C300 with C-log. 11,2 stops on the 5DmkII. I expect the mkIII to be better than the mkII also in DR. I would be scared if it turns out directors and producers scream 5DmkIII after having invested in the four times more expensive C300.

[alpi69]

Show me a 5D-film that the C300 or F3 couldn´t do.

11,2 stops? Is that what Canon said? What I saw so far is more like 9 stops (in the 5D-marionette-film the houses at 1:32 are badly blown out). And the 12 from C-Log are a very conservative number by Canon.

The C300 is undoubtedly the better cam with better IQ (as it should be for that price). So I doubt any director/producer will ask for the 5D if he can have the C300 for little more (rental prices in Munich are 199/day for the C300 body; you´ll pay around 100 for a 5D+EVF+audio).

As a producer I would always go for a S35-videosensor+videocodec+Log instead of a FF-stillsensor with consumer-codec and no Log. The 5D is out of the equation for me. If I want extreme little DOF and a decent codec I take a GH2 with the Voigtlander 0.9lens.....and if I need lots of fps I rent a Epic or Phantom.

[Osslund]

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/scce5.jpg

[Ifocus]

I doubt myself the 5d III will be on par with the c300, but with proper lighting and post I don't see why you couldn't mix the two in the same shoot. It's been done with less so it lies upon the user more than the cam itself. Just my 2 cents.

[arniepix]

Perhaps some misguided nut at Canon thought that someone might actually be interested in buying a 5D Mark III to shoot stills with?

[alpi69]

With all due respect, I have edited 5DMKII and F3 footage (in-cam codec, non-Slog) and believe me it is NOT EVEN CLOSE when working with real footage. Yes, you can technically measure certain F-Stops, but are they really usable or can you just distinguish black and white pixels on some technical-chart? And then add the problem of the codec-mess.

To put the F3 (even with the onboard 4:2:0 codec) and 5DMKII in one line in terms of DR is maybe technically correct, but you can read every chart and statistic to your advantage. I am not a big fan of charts myself. Especially with DSLRs they lie, because they look much better than the res-charts say and they look much worse than the DR-charts say.

I own a 7D and have tried quite a few settings and flat-curves and whatnot. Especially the chroma resolution and the resolution as such are HVXish. They intercut very nicely. The EX1, properly set up, beats it in terms of DR and Rez. An AF-100 should also (never got my hands on Af-100 footage). Not Mojo, but technically. With a super flat curve a 7D might gain a bit more than 9 "usable" stops, but then you have one color in a face, no more distinction there.
This chart says 11 stops for the 7D. Well that is so unrealistic (for REAL LIFE footage) that I can imagine a 5D being around 8-9 in REAL; the 7D maybe 7-8. Again, it might be correct on a chart with black-and-white, but once you have a landscape/face/building reality proves it wrong.
Watch the Zacuto shootout when they discuss this in the viewing-room. They mention that they can see the blacks and whites, but they also acknowledge that it might be unusable in the shadows....watch it at 08:20.

Now add the fact that you can adjust the image in the C300 and F3, but in the DSLRs you cannot do much. These super flat curves come at the cost of losing chroma resolution and also losing color-proofing.

Again: the 5D is an amazing camera and for many, maybe most people the image is more than needed and has a great feel to it especially for the price. But there is a reason why a VW Passat, which is a nice car and can be tuned to look good and be fast, costs 20.000 less than a 5-series BMW which is just better and more comfortable to drive and just as effective in gas-mileage.

That´s my 2 cents.

[alpi69]

Perhaps some misguided nut at Canon thought that someone might actually be interested in buying a 5D Mark III to shoot stills with?

It shoots stills? Wow! ;-)

What might be the truth is this: when someone at Canon suggested to put Video into the MKII (because Nikon did it with the D90) he was considered a misguided nut in his company.....and we know the rest......

[tobyloc]

My take on it with those same parameters (and some extras) would be:

- MOJO: They can both produce amazing, cinematic images in the right hands, probably a tie
- resolution: Possibly very close, so far an unknown but 5D doesn't line skip so is hopefully similar to GH2 which is very close to C300
- sensitivity: Probably close, C300 will likely win and with nicer looking noise but 5D might not be far behind and very good amongst it's direct peers, hopefully noise has less banding too
- DR: Probably close, Canon rate C300 at 12 stops with C-LOG and they're unlikely to be conservative, the 5DII is around 11 stops so I'd imagine the 5DIII to be a half a stop or a little more behind C300, not much more, the 5DII certainly isn't 9 stops, in test or in reality, it's rather similar to FS100 in real life tests which abelcine rates at 11.5. I was expecting C-LOG to be much better here, the F3 S-LOG which will now be included free is close to 14 stops. So the difference between DR of F3 and C300 will be MUCH greater than difference between C300 and 5DIII
- CODEC: Unknown, but C300 will win, this is the most crucial question along with resolution, that i-frame codec is more cinematic and is greater in mbs than the C300's but likely inferior in many ways. Probably a clear win to C300 but if IPB or AllI are good like the GH2 hacked then it could actually be close and the dynamic range battle will be even closer as the shadow detail will be more useful.
- handling on set: Depends on the set. Documentary set win goes to C300 with decent onboard sound and built in NDs, though 5DIII is lighter and smaller so a little more versatile. Film set should use seperate sound, Matte-box etc so comparable. Battery life is good on both.
- price-value: Depends on use. C300 a better all rounder but 5DIII could be indistinguishable for many projects, particularly dependant on post production and where the final image is going. 5DIII is definitely better bang for buck but then a hacked GH2 is even better still.
-Build quality: Maybe a tie here, 5DIII might actually win this.
-DOF control: Depends on what you're filming, technically 5DIII has more control, a unique, nore cinematic image really so should win this. A narrative film maker might prefer more depth of field though so would prefer S35 sensor size, personally I would prefer full frame and the 5DIII for it's unique vista vision beauty and more flexible DOF, if I want more DOF in low light I'd use a GH2.
-Ability to take stills/timelapse: Clear win for 5DIII here, a 5D classic would beat the C300 for time lapse.

Personally, I've got a 5DIII on preorder and I think it will go well with my hacked GH2 along with ocasional nostalgic love for my 5DII, I also take stills professionally so the 5DIII is a no brainer. I'm just hoping that codec isn't cr@p and that downres is good. If I had the budget or were going for more narrative film making I would probably get or rent a Scarlet. This is not to say the C300 isn't good, it's the best all rounder for sure and the one to pick if you could only have one camera, but if you want the most cinematic look, the best resolution or the best dynamic range, it's not top of the list in any of those areas in the under £12K cameras, doesn't mean I don't want one!

[Kholi]

Alpi I agree with you on the DR. There's no damned way 5D is a usable 11.2 stops of DR in any real situation.

It is definitely in the range of 8-9, and that's being optimistic.

[alpi69]

My take on it with those same parameters (and some extras) would be:

- DR: Probably close, Canon rate C300 at 12 stops with C-LOG and they're unlikely to be conservative, the 5DII is around 11 stops so I'd imagine the 5DIII to be a half a stop or a little more behind C300, not much more,


As I said it is an urban myth the 5D-MKII has 11+ stops. It has 8-9 at most. But overall I can agree with some of your points.

The C300 is better and on top or near the top of all cameras (from Alexa to GH2) in pretty much every category, and that´s why it costs so much more.
The 5D is slightly smaller (until you add a EVF) and as a pure film cam very capable.

[NewYorkLion]

its going to boil down to this:

The low budget stuff, that is now using the 5d will stay with the DSLRs, and the higher end stuff that used to be shot on f900s, Varicams, and Reds will be the stuff going to the f3 and the c300, epic etc...

If you buy/bought a c300 thinking that everyone who is now asking you to shoot on a 5d is going to want to pay double for the c300, you just wasted 10 grand.

I for one am worried that too many prosumers and amateurs are going to be the c300 and be forced to rent them for cheap to make thier payments, and then drive down the rental value.

[Kholi]

IMO if you aren't renting any of your 10K plus cameras to features or extended shows, you will definitely be renting them out for pennies.

C300 private owner rate, full kit, my guess will balance out to about 300~400/day in two months or so if you're in good company.

[alpi69]

sounds a bit low.
In Munich you can get it for 199 (naked body).
but as a minimal setup with a few batteries, CF-cards, Atomos Samurai (=monitor and recorder/player for the director), a few EF-lenses, tripod and a mic it should be 500 IMO (depending on the lenses of course). We´ll see. First I need to get it.....

[Kholi]

Well, also depends on your area. LA? Count on it

I can get a full RED MX package for 650 pretty easily, less if I actually tried.

Throw rock - hit red owner.

[James0b57]

Throw rock - hit red owner.
Good times.

[Osslund]

I look forward to see comparison when the 5DmkIII is out, only then we know the real power of the mkIII.

[Noel Evans]

I think the point really being missed and the turnoff for me in the thread title is that if you have a C300 then the 5dmkIII is likely to be an excellent b cam. It will definitely not outperform C300. Does that matter though if you can only afford a 5dmkIII? Of course not. Personally I'm very hopeful the performance is good, and if it is I won't be lamenting ownership of a C300. I'll be thinking excellent now I can get a tool that can work closely with the c300. And there may be times when a FF look even at a lower spec than the C300 may be what gets the feeling I want to convey. Not only that but with the mark II features are being made.

Yes, the tools are getting better - but the content I see seems to be getting worse.

And if you're thinking of buying a C300 as a tool to rent out - not a great business plan IMO, and I say good luck competing with the rental companies.

Bring on the 5DMKIII and let's hope it's good!

[NewYorkLion]

right now im seeing rates in SF from $375 to $500

[tobyloc]

Dynamic range is a very specific, quantifiable thing. The 5D mark ii has been tested properly, scientifically, by Robert Primes ASC and ProVideo Coalition and they've found between 10 and 11.2 stops of dynamic range, the discrepancy probably due to the 10 stops being determined before the flatter picture profiles were around. To suggest it has 8-9 at the most and that 11 is an urban myth and to back this up with feelings and subjective non scientific opinions is not helpful in my opinion. Or you are using a different definition of dynamic range based on how much you like the look of the noise and how the codec falls apart, which should be called something other than "dynamic range". The FS100 is rated by Abel Cine at 11.5 stops and the non SLOG F3 at 12, if you can find anyone out there with both who says the FS100/F3 has at least 3.5/4 stops more dynamic range than a 5D, I will eat my hat, that is a HUGE amount of light and is completely bonkers. 1 stop is a lot of light and stops aren't a linear scale.

Back to the C300 vs 5D3, it's too early to tell on lots of things but I imagine they would intercut well as Noel mentioned, similar DR, high iso and canon colours will help here, assuming that downres looks good on the 5D3, if not the resolution difference might be jarring as the C300 has a full 1080 lines of vertical resolution so looks nice and sharp, I don't think it would intercut well with 5D2 footage.

[telecam]

If you are on a budget, the 5D MKIII is a no brainer...

[alpi69]

If you are on a budget, the 5D MKIII is a no brainer...

It really depends on your work. On a budget the GH2 is a no-brainer. The 5DMKIII...I would have not bought a few years ago (went for the 7D instead of the MKII because of price!). For me they were always nice B-Cams but had so many limitations they were just too risky to use as A-cams. If the MKIII fixes aliasing and moire and has peaking and a few more features maybe, but for the price of it you almost get the FS100 or AF-100 now. And they are just better camcorders. And if you do run-gun only then something like the XF300 or Panasoncis HPX250 are so much easier to work with.

There are many tools to choose from and our line of work and budget decide it for you. T put the 5D and C300 in the same discussion is therefore almost silly, because if you think about the C300, because you can earn it back....THAT is a no brainer for a cameraman - or almost, because the F3 is there also.
But if your budget is in the 5.000 range the decision is tougher, because the choices are almost endless with Canon, Nikon, SOny and Panasonic and JVC....

[alpi69]

To suggest it has 8-9 at the most and that 11 is an urban myth and to back this up with feelings and subjective non scientific opinions is not helpful in my opinion. Or you are using a different definition of dynamic range based on how much you like the look of the noise and how the codec falls apart, which should be called something other than "dynamic range".

Well I said the scientific test might be correct, but when you watch it in real life it is just not there. Sorry, that´s my experience with 5D material (and 7D even worse). I like the image, but it is not en par with the F3 and C300, if you want to be flexible in the grade, is all I say.

[cowpunk52]

There is a very real difference between captured and usable stops of dynamic range in any camera. Codec, SNR, processing and other elements play a large role in determining if the difference is large or small. To some degree, your own limits of acceptable performance help determine this, as well. While I don't doubt that the 5dII may be capable of capturing 11 stops, the usable range is probably closer to 9 or slightly less, in my experience. I actually find the usable DR of the 5dII to be quite similar to the XLH1, which had about 8 stops and some change of usable DR.

[gonzo_entertainment]

I'd agree "usable" is closer to 8 or 9 stops on the MK2. The Achilles heel being the highlights where things like cinestyle don't help as much as they do on the shadows end.

[Kholi]

Digital always favors low over high. High belongs to film.

Agreeing with CP and Alpi (second time I guess), if you find more than 8 stops in a recorded video stream from a 5D let me see, cause that's amazing.

[alpi69]

I'd agree "usable" is closer to 8 or 9 stops on the MK2. The Achilles heel being the highlights where things like cinestyle don't help as much as they do on the shadows end.

isn´t it funny: in 2009 we got shocked that we "can see in the darkness" with the 5D and 7D and ISO1600+1.4 lenses, and in 2012 we are still missing the highlights of film (unless you shoot Alexa).
I shoot a lot of snow/winterstuff. The 5D sucks at it. The HVX is still looking great on snow; it still has one of the nicer highlight roll-offs. So digital really can be a beast, because you don´t want to intercut a dialogue with a HVX and a 5D in a "low-light-dungeon-scene"...the HVX would make you puke...

Now we have ISO 12800 and still can´t decide who has better DR/REZ...haha....we are such nerds, all of us.

[James0b57]

There is a very real difference between captured and usable stops of dynamic range in any camera. Codec, SNR, processing and other elements play a large roll in determining if the difference is large or small. To some degree, your own limits of acceptable performance help determine this, as well. While I don't doubt that the 5dII may be capable of capturing 11 stops, the usable range is probably closer to 9 or slightly less, in my experience. I actually find the usable DR of the 5dII to be quite similar to the XLH1, which had about 8 stops and some change of usable DR.
I usually find any excuse to disagree with you, but you took the words right out of my mouth!

Mad love,
James

[Nuno Dias]

I've shot with both DSLRs and the C300, and there is just no comparison. Its' a different beast, it really is. Although I do love my 5D, ever since I shot with the C300 it is impossible to go back to the DSLR world.

Regarding Red, it is an excellent camera, but I just can't bring myself to like the way that camera handles highlights and strong contrast situations, well, it can't... just a simple white shirt on somebody becomes a problem. The highlight rolloff is nest to none. But everything else is fine. But shooting with a camera that can't read white without clipping, its just a big problem for me.

This is something I never saw on the C300, it handles any highlight at any given type of light, be it tungsten, halogen or even good old daylight. The color accuracy is also pretty amazing throughout the entire spectrum.

Right now I'm really loving what this little camera can do. Maybe Red's Dragon sensor will be able to improve all these issues in the future.

[Zephyrnoid]

It shoots stills? Wow! ;-)

What might be the truth is this: when someone at Canon suggested to put Video into the MKII (because Nikon did it with the D90) he was considered a misguided nut in his company.....and we know the rest......

actually, Nikons have had video of some sort, going back to around 2004. no doubt the hybridization will continue and the C300 is the first shot across the bow in that arena. But someone please explain to me WHY a camera like the C300 doesn't shoot stills like the digital Hassy?

[cowpunk52]

But someone please explain to me WHY a camera like the C300 doesn't shoot stills like the digital Hassy?

Because it has a S35 (24.6 x 13.8mm) sized, 8 megapixel CMOS sensor specifically designed for broadcast-quality high resolution HD video capture capable of 60 frames per second. The cheapest digital Hasselblad, the $14k H4d, has a medium format (44.2 x 33.1mm) 31 megapixel CCD sensor that tops out at 1.2 seconds per capture, or about 42 frames per minute.

They are completely different tools designed for vastly different tasks.

[Billy Barber]

Perhaps some misguided nut at Canon thought that someone might actually be interested in buying a 5D Mark III to shoot stills with?

you just made me snort my morning coffee....

[NeedCreative]

Alpi I agree with you on the DR. There's no damned way 5D is a usable 11.2 stops of DR in any real situation.

It is definitely in the range of 8-9, and that's being optimistic.

Agreed. I'd say it's a solid 9. Perhaps the MK III can get 10. I'd say the C300 is more than 12; Canon themselves said to me they guarantee 12 but it's frequently tested higher. No one has yet to perform their own test (AbelCine is working in it) but I wouldn't be surprised if it charts above 12, or even closer to 14.

The 5D3 is a great camera for video. But Canon would be idiots to make a camera for $4000 that produces the same images as their $16000 camera. Close enough, but the C300 will still win in low light detail and dynamic range. The proof is in the grade.

[alpi69]

Just made a quick test with the C300 and the 7D with an 24-105/4L. The 7D looks so good when on its own, but you can probably not intercut them well, because the DSLR is extremely soft in direct comparison. I did not do any DR tests, but guess the 1,5 extra stops will help the C300 ;-)