5D Mark III or 7D Mark II?

Abaddon

Abaddon

Well-known member
I'm considering selling my 7D soon to get a 5D Mark III or a 7D Mark II when it arrives. Outside of the sensor sizes and price difference, are there any other dramatic differences between the two as far as shooting professional video? I know all the specks aren't in yet, but I'm curious to know if anyone has any early thoughts on this.
 
Abaddon said:
are there any other dramatic differences between the two as far as shooting professional video? I know all the specks aren't in yet, but I'm curious to know if anyone has any early thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

No one even knows when the 7d2 will be released if at all...and you're trying to compare them? No one knows, it could be a massive improvement and be sharp, free of moire with good low light and over take the mark3, or it could be the same as the current 7d but with more photo features and maybe better low light (as with the 6D)...
 
Based on information coming out, I'd say the Mark II is absolutely coming out. We may not have all the specs, but some seem to be legit. It's supposedly going to be better in low light have have a lot less grain. It'll also shoot 10fps.
 
Its extremely unlikely the supposed 7D2 is going to have any significant features that will make it a viable option over the 6D or 5D3 in terms of video, especially with the recently release of the C100. Don't bother waiting for a camera that doesn't exist. Get yourself a GH3...
 
Mike Lorushe said:
Its extremely unlikely the supposed 7D2 is going to have any significant features that will make it a viable option over the 6D or 5D3 in terms of video, especially with the recently release of the C100. Don't bother waiting for a camera that doesn't exist. Get yourself a GH3...
Click to expand...

+100

They will NOT make the 7d better than the Mark III or the 6d, so if slr is your choice of equipment for recording video buy a Panasonic GH3. Canon dslrs have been surpassed a long time ago.......
 
J.F.R. said:
+100

They will NOT make the 7d better than the Mark III or the 6d, so if slr is your choice of equipment for recording video buy a Panasonic GH3. Canon dslrs have been surpassed a long time ago.......
Click to expand...

How has the gh3 surpassed the canons?
As far as I'm concerned, the gh3 only surpasses the 5d3 in resolution. The mark3 still has the edge in dynamic range, high-iso performance, build quality, bigger sensor...oh, and let's not forget that the gh3 aliases a little...the canon doesn't.
If resolution's all you want, by all means, get the gh3... but the way I see it, your audience will far more likely notice noise and blown highlights than the difference in resolution.


Of course it's up to you to decide if the 5d is worth the extra money...but mind you, the gh3 isn't that cheap either...
 
Donald Ong said:
How has the gh3 surpassed the canons?
As far as I'm concerned, the gh3 only surpasses the 5d3 in resolution. The mark3 still has the edge in dynamic range, high-iso performance, build quality, bigger sensor...oh, and let's not forget that the gh3 aliases a little...the canon doesn't.
If resolution's all you want, by all means, get the gh3... but the way I see it, your audience will far more likely notice noise and blown highlights than the difference in resolution.

Of course it's up to you to decide if the 5d is worth the extra money...but mind you, the gh3 isn't that cheap either...
Click to expand...


I cant remember where exactly, but I have seen multiple websites claiming that the GH3 actually has more dynamic range than the 5D MK III. In that case you gain resolution, dynamic range and 1080p slowmotion. Also, an autofocus that is actually worth a dime. It looks and feels like a toy, I give you that, and has some slight aliasing going on but nevertheless a great camera IQ wise. Also a lot cheaper than a 5D.
 
Donald Ong said:
How has the gh3 surpassed the canons?
As far as I'm concerned, the gh3 only surpasses the 5d3 in resolution. The mark3 still has the edge in dynamic range, high-iso performance, build quality, bigger sensor...oh, and let's not forget that the gh3 aliases a little...the canon doesn't.
If resolution's all you want, by all means, get the gh3... but the way I see it, your audience will far more likely notice noise and blown highlights than the difference in resolution.


Of course it's up to you to decide if the 5d is worth the extra money...but mind you, the gh3 isn't that cheap either...
Click to expand...

*Scratches head.....

My statement is fact and not opinion.

*GH3 has more resolution which is what actually resolves detail in an image
*No scientific test has been done yet to state which camera has better dynamic range, initial results show GH3 as good or better than Mark III

You are incorrect if you think the GH3 has more aliasing the Mark 3. Also Moire is a problem that is not normally scene on Panasonic Dslr when compared to Canon.

Finally this line makes no sense
"but the way I see it, your audience will far more likely notice noise and blown highlights than the difference in resolution."

Noise is lack of light to the sensor, this can be corrected with light, which is the same thing with blown highlights. GH3 has increased dynamic range.
Furthermore what you can NOT do though is increase the 5d resolution, that is something your audience WILL notice. No matter what picture you try to paint that image from Canon dslr does not resolve the same amount of detail.

This has been proven over and over.

Finally I used to shoot on Canon t2i, 7d, 60d and even 5d. For Shallow dof I loved them + the colors right out from the camera. The main reason though I couldn;t no longer use them professionally was because they could not give me what I needed.
You cannot shoot a wide scene with everything in focus and have great detail, the lack of resolution in the camera simply cannot do it. This is the main reason why I have been using the Panasonic Slr cameras. Their image quality is better than Canon dslr, I shot on Canon dslr for almost 3 years....

GH2 with the Hack is unmatched by any Canon dslr. Now their Cinema Cameras look beautiful, but then again they are in the $6k range.

TO end this discussion I will say the main reason for me leaving Canon dslr was the lack of resolution on wide shots. The GH2/GH3 resolve more detail and I needed that. Also Canon suffer from moire and aliasing much worst as well.
 
Same for me. I changed from Canon to the GH3 for the same reason. Every wide shot with a deep focus was ruined by aliasing and looked soft. Close-ups of people with shallow DOF were acceptable though, but wide shots always diaspointed me when viewing them on my 2560x1440 monitor. I have used the 60D and 5D MII a lot over the last 2 years so I am not biased.
 
J.F.R. said:
To end this discussion…
Click to expand...

Say what you want, but this discussion will not end. Ever. Some will say that the resolution and perceived increase in DR of the GH3 makes it "better." Others will say the full-frame look and highlight roll of the Canon 5DIII or 6D will make it better.

There is no "winning" this argument. It's always going to be an ongoing discussion with people on either side choosing the tool that THEY FEEL suits their needs best.
 
Abaddon said:
I've been looking at footage from the GH3. I saw heavy aliasing in almost every video.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect the 7DII to be aliasing free seeing as the videos from the 6D have massive aliasing as well. The 5D3 gets around it by being incredibly soft (extra OLPF). So far I think resolution and aliasing in a DSLR seem to go hand in hand. I wonder if they will come out with AA filters for 6D and GH3 like they did for 5D2. Might be a good solution to keep some more resolution and cut down on aliasing.

5DIII or GH3 are great cameras. Can't go wrong with either at their respective price points.
 
GH2/3 is not best for everybody. There is a reason that "Hollywood" still doesn't use them as much as Canon DSLRs, despite all the internet test footage that keeps getting beaten to death.

Resolution is not everything - in fact it's not even in the top 3 for me - I value dynamic range, color, and usability far more, as I shoot people, not test charts.

I'm so sick of the endless "buy a GH2/3" chorus around here.
 
nothing said:
GH2/3 is not best for everybody. There is a reason that "Hollywood" still doesn't use them as much as Canon DSLRs, despite all the internet test footage that keeps getting beaten to death.

Resolution is not everything - in fact it's not even in the top 3 for me - I value dynamic range, color, and usability far more, as I shoot people, not test charts.

I'm so sick of the endless "buy a GH2/3" chorus around here.
Click to expand...


First and foremost I apologize if this thread got derailed, but in opinion from a prior Canon user was needed. Also I shoot people and not charts, with over 60+ Music videos for local and signed Artists I can share a very concrete opinion.

GH2 with the Hack simply resolves more detail than anything I ever shot with my Canon's, this is fact. Now on people's faces from close ups to ecu is not really that much difference, but when shooting wides the Canon's simply do not hold up as well. Canon's imo have a better build and feel great in hands, the GH3 feels a lot better and comparable, the GH2 not so much. Look at this video posted yesterday on this very website from GH2 footage (Hacked) and judge for yourself. GH2 at $499 currently is imo the best cost/quality of any camera that shoots video.

 
Last edited:
Gary Huff said:
Yes. Hype.
Click to expand...

I was going to go with paid sponsorship.

I use both a 5D and a GH3 and the GH3 feels and looks like a mini 5D to me. What I give up in shallow DOF (not always a good thing) I gain in resolution. The GH3 and 5D feel really close in DR so that argument is no longer there. Canon colour is a personal pref. Some love it some hate it.

Both are the best DSLRs for video right now.
 
nothing said:
GH2/3 is not best for everybody. There is a reason that "Hollywood" still doesn't use them as much as Canon DSLRs, despite all the internet test footage that keeps getting beaten to death.

Resolution is not everything - in fact it's not even in the top 3 for me - I value dynamic range, color, and usability far more, as I shoot people, not test charts.

I'm so sick of the endless "buy a GH2/3" chorus around here.
Click to expand...

+100000

I'm sorry, but the endless preaching 'get the gh2/3 is really quite tiresome.
I have never gotten any complaints/comments about resolution with any camera... of course i just got into the 5d3 system...but so far, all those I showed the footage to didn't even notice the resolution difference from my previous small-chip video cam (which was razor sharp). What they have commented on is how well the camera 'sees' in the dark (I don't always shoot in controlled environments where i can light...to all those saying 'you need to light for the gh2/3', try shooting an event or stage show and try lighting). I value low light, DR and basically everything else over resolution. As long as it's reasonably sharp and not completely soft, it's fine for me.

*completely irrelevant for video...But for those of us who also take photos occasionally, the mark3 would be quite a bit better too, I would assume.
 
Last edited:
Donald Ong said:
+100000

I'm sorry, but the endless preaching 'get the gh2/3 is really quite tiresome.
I have never gotten any complaints/comments about resolution with any camera... of course i just got into the 5d3 system...but so far, all those I showed the footage to didn't even notice the resolution difference from my previous small-chip video cam (which was razor sharp). What they have commented on is how well the camera 'sees' in the dark (I don't always shoot in controlled environments where i can light...to all those saying 'you need to light for the gh2/3', try shooting an event or stage show and try lighting). I value low light, DR and basically everything else over resolution. As long as it's reasonably sharp and not completely soft, it's fine for me.

*completely irrelevant for video...But for those of us who also take photos occasionally, the mark3 would be quite a bit better too, I would assume.
Click to expand...

So you have used a GH3 recently? Are you so sure that you cannot shoot something that is not lit?

I think it's amazing how people defend a "brand" as if it was their first born....... Mark III is a $3000 pro camera, GH2/3 cost $500-$1300 Consumer/Prosumer cams.... As a Director of Photography there is simply no denying such an amazing tool and what it has to offer. This thread will never end, but just for comparison look how the GH3 looks compared to Mark III, options people I believe that's what allows one to grow.....

 
Last edited:
Sorry to not jump on either bandwagon -thought they both looked great. Buy the one that speaks to you, for whatever reasons YOU feel are important. If great projects have been done on both systems...Canon and Panasonic (which have been done on previous and less capable siblings) Musgo for the GH2 is mind bowing. Numerous 5D and 7D projects have looked very good as well. So who cares if YOU want one over the other...it's YOUR film/video/project.
And no one knows what the 7d MK2 will hold. But.... The 1st 7D had more options video wise than the 5D MK2....
I don't believe the new 7D will have more options than the 5D MK3, but I could EASILY seeing the 7DMK2 being the launch of GEN 2 APSC video for Canon. The new codec options and an extra Olpf FOR video. One might ask- Why wouldn't the 6d get the OLPF? Well it's an entry level full frame camera that couldn't be so close in spec as to hurt the MK3. This was just one of the differences to keep it entry level. I predicted the 5D MK3 would have a better codec and less moire/aliasing than the 5D MK2 to start GEN 2. I predict the 7D MK2 will carry over GEN 2 video capability as well. Then the T5i will get it....all a guess, but I'm willing to bet on it- any takers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top