Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5d mkiii vs the Sony

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    5d mkiii vs the Sony

    I recieved my 5d MKiii in Jan sold my panasonic and I saw a used FS100 and was thinking of picking it up as an extra camera. I have a few questions that hopefully some of the gang here will be able to answer for me. There are a lot of differences between both cameras one used as a still and the other is a video camera etc......

    1. I know there has been a lot of films shot on the 5d and a few of them release in theaters. Has there been any films shot and release in the theater with the FS100? I haven't really seen any footage from this camera that makes me go WOW!!!
    2. The Mkiii is a full frame camera and the FS100 isn't but what is the differences in the k bite? The Red camera I think is around 4k?
    3. For film footage slap up on a big screen is the 5d better visual then the FS100?
    4. Is the FS100 worth the hassle and time? It seem that a lot of video cameras don't even come close to the 5d.

    Thanks in advance

    #2
    definitely fs100 over mkiii, fs100 is a real video camera with real video

    Comment


      #3
      Hi
      Let me comment on #2 "the differences in the k bite". When you say the Red is 4K it leads me to believe that you are referring to the output dimensions of the video frames in pixels. Both cameras max out at 1920 X 1080. I hope I understood you correctly.

      Comment


        #4
        #1 The reason you've seen the 5D used in films is because of the small form factor, not because its the one camera to rule them all.......
        The FS has not been seen as much because once you start moving upwards there are better alternatives for making cinema for a few extra bucks.

        #2 The 5D does NOT resolve full HD..... The FS100 does.

        #3 Oh so you are one of the few who will get to do big screen material? I mean really? If so... why arent we talking Alexa or Red or F65?

        #4 For now the FS100 is on top of the 5D for a number of reasons.... less moire and aliasing.... XLR inputs and build preamps which are pretty damn nice.... Metabones Speedbooster gives you full fram...e field of view and adds one stop to you lens, ie 2.8 = 2.0.... AF lens options in Sony brand lenses.... Once april hits Canon will roll out firmware updates giving us 4:2:2 and thus a bit more gradable footage.

        Having said this... I own both. My 5D I bought because I wanted a new stills camera, not because I want it mainly to film. If I was to choose today ID probablyvgo for a used FS700 instead due to better highlight roll off and slow mo plus its more rentable than the FS100.

        Comment


          #5
          #2
          4k is a measure of resolution, not bitrate
          both the FS100 and 5D record 1920x1080 video, but if that video is soft then actual resolution will be lower (so, both are 1080p, but real resolution is lower on the 5D than on the FS100)
          and then, moving to bitrate, it's a very complex issue, since codec-related image quality is affected by a lot of stuff other than just bitrate; the FS100 has a stronger codec with a smaller bitrate than the 5D2 (the codec is half the bitrate, and still it will hold its own much better when you start to push it); I'm not sure if the 5D3, with its much-higher-bitrate All-I mode (nearly twice the bitrate of the 5D2), can match the codec of the FS100 (it might, or it might not, I haven't seen any side-by-side tests)

          For me, both the 5D3 and the FS100 would be good enough for theatrical projection. I would avoid the 5D2, not because it's bad, but because it's old tech and there are better options now (if you don't require full-frame, I would say that even the $400 NEX-5N is better than the 5D2; same for the D5200, D800, and 5D3; and some -not me- would argue that the GH2 is better too - http://www.vimeo.com/similaar/shootout2012)
          Last edited by Samuel H; 03-19-2013, 02:16 AM.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by legrevedotcom View Post
            #2 The 5D does NOT resolve full HD..... The FS100 does.
            The FS100 - as good as it is - still does not resolve full 1080p. It is still a bit soft and compared for example to the EX1, the difference in sharpness is apparent.

            Codec issue, I don't agree with. The FS100 has the exact same codec issues as the 5dmarkII (macroblocking, movement breaking up) and is actually worse than the 5dmarkIII codec (no breaking up of movement in all-i mode). I was seriously disappointed in the 50p quality of the FS700 and the AVCHD implementation of it. In 25p it can look very good but the regular stuff (water, fire, big movements) will destroy it.

            Comment


              #7
              old tech new tech, just DARK ENERGY the damn thing and everything cuts together beautifully. be it mk3,mk2,fs100,700,red,t2i,t3i.....etc

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by legrevedotcom View Post
                #1 The reason you've seen the 5D used in films is because of the small form factor, not because its the one camera to rule them all.......
                The FS has not been seen as much because once you start moving upwards there are better alternatives for making cinema for a few extra bucks.

                #2 The 5D does NOT resolve full HD..... The FS100 does.

                #3 Oh so you are one of the few who will get to do big screen material? I mean really? If so... why arent we talking Alexa or Red or F65?

                #4 For now the FS100 is on top of the 5D for a number of reasons.... less moire and aliasing.... XLR inputs and build preamps which are pretty damn nice.... Metabones Speedbooster gives you full fram...e field of view and adds one stop to you lens, ie 2.8 = 2.0.... AF lens options in Sony brand lenses.... Once april hits Canon will roll out firmware updates giving us 4:2:2 and thus a bit more gradable footage.

                Having said this... I own both. My 5D I bought because I wanted a new stills camera, not because I want it mainly to film. If I was to choose today ID probablyvgo for a used FS700 instead due to better highlight roll off and slow mo plus its more rentable than the FS100.
                Agree with many of your points, but in my shooting I've found the 5d3 has less moire and aliasing than the FS100 The 5d2 OTOH is a major mess in that regard. After sharpening the 5d3 comes pretty close to what I was getting out of the FS100.

                Shooting with the FS100 is more methodical because its really easy to blow out the highlights and picture profiles are a PITA - though there are some good ones in the PP thread on this site. The FS codec is great, but there's not a lot of latitude to pull details out of shadows when you expose to protect highlights. The FS700 with the cinegammas and built-in ND filters makes it a lot easier. I went back to Canon after shooting with the FS100 in Florida, where the sun is always shining - its much easier to tame the highlights and get good skin tones with the 5d3 than the FS. I shoot some real estate videos, many houses here have large screened porches, and I find moire is less of an issue since switching to the 5d3. Just my opinion and experiences.

                I'm looking forward to the 4:2:2 update.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Thanks for some really good feedback. It is important for me to figure out what to do and having feedback from people that have used these cameras is very helpful.

                  Legrevedotcom - I had to laugh when I read your feedback on #3 so you are telling me that you haven't made any films? OR you have made films but never sent them to film festivals OR you did send them to film festival but your choice of film festivals are the low end ones that don't use big screen you know the ones you find playing in bars etc... LOL Hey this is starting to sound like that soda advertisement AND lol. I'm planning at this stage to send only to the bigger film festival that show on the big screens and I want the footage to look GREAT!!! If I don't get in then I will have to go with the lower end film festival and I'm sure I will see you there Legrevedotcom :-)

                  I also was thinking about what you said using the RED and that is a thought. I'm going to check and see what it cost to rent the camera. The only major problem I may have is my computer editing system might not handle the RED footage. I'm on Vegas but will jump over to Vegas and ask that group.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Hey PhotoChris - I heard some info on the 4:2:2 do you think it will be good enough just to stick with the mk3? I was told that I would have to have another device hook up to my camera just to be able to use the 4:2:2. Thanks for any feedback.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      It was a very valid question because who is to say where the limit is in regards to quality? 10 years ago sd was good enough.... Canon might be good enough... but something is better and then something is better again. And it goes like that the other way too.... you could film a movie with an iphone if you only know who to write and light properly.

                      in regards to the extra unit, yes... you need something like the ninja or samurai...

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Corine View Post
                        Hey PhotoChris - I heard some info on the 4:2:2 do you think it will be good enough just to stick with the mk3? I was told that I would have to have another device hook up to my camera just to be able to use the 4:2:2. Thanks for any feedback.
                        The 4:2:2 update is through the HDMI - so an external recorder will be necessary. Looking forward to someone posting clips that I can tinker with before buying a Ninja.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I had one person try to tell me that all in all the 4:2:2 was a waste of time and you wouldn't get any better res or anything after you edit and that staying where you are was the best. This is coming from a co-worker. hmmmmm

                          Comment


                            #14
                            4:2:2 has twice the color info of 4:2:0. If you're pushing your footage with an aggressive grading, it makes a big difference. Otherwise, you may not even notice the difference.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              4:2:0, 4:2:2, just DARK ENERGY the damn thing and you dun need to worry about aggressive grading. Only 150 bucks and you're good!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X