5D Mark III or 7D Mark II?

https://vimeo.com/10570139 Canon 5D MK2- Looks great to me and a lot of others- Don't like it...you don't have to buy it. The aesthetic of the image is a PERSONAL opinion, not fact.
https://vimeo.com/gamiorbegoso/httpwwwfacebookcompagesmusgo229913677100591 Panasonic GH2 - Looks great to me and a lot of others. Don't like it...you don't have to buy it. The aesthetic of the image is a PERSONAL opinion, not fact.
I understand debating the practical differences, but the rest is all a matter of personal taste.
 
Firefox39 said:
To me it comes down to the "look". The GH3 just looks more like "video" and the 5D III looks more like film. Whatever that means. :) I just like the Canon look. Yes, the GH3 is sharper and I do like that about it.
Click to expand...

This looks like video to you...........






pulpfiction007 said:
https://vimeo.com/10570139 Canon 5D MK2- Looks great to me and a lot of others- Don't like it...you don't have to buy it. The aesthetic of the image is a PERSONAL opinion, not fact.
https://vimeo.com/gamiorbegoso/httpwwwfacebookcompagesmusgo229913677100591 Panasonic GH2 - Looks great to me and a lot of others. Don't like it...you don't have to buy it. The aesthetic of the image is a PERSONAL opinion, not fact.
I understand debating the practical differences, but the rest is all a matter of personal taste.
Click to expand...


Resolution is Fact, Many many tests have been done that shows what each camera actually resolve in term of detail. Now what anyone likes is their opinion, but fact are facts.....
 
Last edited:
The GH2/3 have more resolution. And there were sharper cams than the old DVX in it's day...so what. It still comes down to personal taste. This endless arguing about which is better is ludicrous, both systems produce very very good images for the price. Some like the Canons, some like the Panasonic.....pretty simple.
For people reading...practical differences are more insightful on which one they might prefer. Like the GH2/3 have a working EVF, the Canons are PAL/NTSC- things like that.
Telling somebody what their eyes should see is pointless...esp when both have examples of incredible work being done on them.
 
I don't get these posts. Why are we waiting to shoot on a camera that doesn't exist? If it's budget, get a gh2 or t4i. If you want quality, get the mk3. If those don't work out, buy a used AF100 or FS100. There is so many available cameras out there more affordable than it has ever been to consumers. Shoot now with whats available and replace/exchange cam bodies later.

I'm going to make a post, "What do you want out of a GH5?", oh wait, we have that already also. =)
 
pulpfiction007 said:
The GH2/3 have more resolution. And there were sharper cams than the old DVX in it's day...so what. It still comes down to personal taste. This endless arguing about which is better is ludicrous, both systems produce very very good images for the price. Some like the Canons, some like the Panasonic.....pretty simple.
For people reading...practical differences are more insightful on which one they might prefer. Like the GH2/3 have a working EVF, the Canons are PAL/NTSC- things like that.
Telling somebody what their eyes should see is pointless...esp when both have examples of incredible work being done on them.
Click to expand...



Please show me Extreme wide shots with HD Quality detail from Canon Mark II, 7d, etc.....

I shot Canon for almost 3 years and this is something technically the camera cannot do. Show Me extreme wide shots with deep dof and everything looking Sharp and in focus.

I rarely EVER needed this shot, but when I did and I could NOT achieve it on a Canon dslr is the reason I switched. I have over 50+ videos I've done on Canon dslr, so I am speaking first hand experience.
 
J.F.R. said:
Please show me Extreme wide shots with HD Quality detail from Canon Mark II, 7d, etc.....

I shot Canon for almost 3 years and this is something technically the camera cannot do. Show Me extreme wide shots with deep dof and everything looking Sharp and in focus.

I rarely EVER needed this shot, but when I did and I could NOT achieve it on a Canon dslr is the reason I switched. I have over 50+ videos I've done on Canon dslr, so I am speaking first hand experience.
Click to expand...
https://vimeo.com/9856236
https://vimeo.com/8100091
https://vimeo.com/43893276
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=r-ZV-bwZmBw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7V0DpnGD_oc

Lots of examples. Not always razor sharp....but most of this stuff looks good to me. The City of Lakes in particular has lots of wide detail shots and they look gorgeous. (my opinion of course)
 
pulpfiction007 said:
but most of this stuff looks good to me. The City of Lakes in particular has lots of wide detail shots and they look gorgeous. (my opinion of course)
Click to expand...

Are you watching these full screen on a proper monitor? Because there's no detail in the wides on any of the clips you listed.

Perhaps you're just not familiar with what can be achieved with other cameras? Because if you did, you probably wouldn't be saying that.
 
lol......
Now look at these Wide shots what's being done on Hacked GH2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p74NXaReyJc&hd=1

Art is art and any artist can create a beautiful artistic image, but what I am speaking here is actual resolution. Look at this link I provided and ten do some searches for yourself. No one needs to like the image from any camera, you can see with your own eyes though which has more detail....

Not everyone gets it though.
 
I've hooked city of lakes up to my TV. It's apples to apples. It looks good to me and yeah I have seen what super sharp cameras can do, and it would be nice to have it all. But these are inexpensive cameras that CAN produce gorgeous footage. (both Panasonic and Canon) I have owned a GH1, a D90, a 50D an HFS 200, and several Panasonic video cameras. Resolution isn't everything. It's my opinion....lots of others as well.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Resolution isn't everything. It's my opinion....lots of others as well.
Click to expand...

Resolution is everything to a point. Splitting hairs when it comes to 2k vs 4k, sure, but 700p vs 900p? Quite a difference. Frankly, I hate looking at old footage from my DSLR compared to the hacked GH2 and the C100 now.

If resolution wasn't everything, why bother upgrading from SD cameras?
 
J.F.R. said:
lol......
Now look at these Wide shots what's being done on Hacked GH2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p74NXaReyJc&hd=1

Art is art and any artist can create a beautiful artistic image, but what I am speaking here is actual resolution. Look at this link I provided and ten do some searches for yourself. No one needs to like the image from any camera, you can see with your own eyes though which has more detail....

Not everyone gets it though.
Click to expand...

Yeah I see it the detail, but so what, bottom line...lots of people enjoy the footage from both cameras...some like the color of one over the other, the way the body feels, the lens selection....this is like a Ford/Chevy argument. I was trying to say both are nice. I know that's crazy talk around here.
 
Gary Huff said:
Resolution is everything to a point. Splitting hairs when it comes to 2k vs 4k, sure, but 700p vs 900p? Quite a difference. Frankly, I hate looking at old footage from my DSLR compared to the hacked GH2 and the C100 now.

If resolution wasn't everything, why bother upgrading from SD cameras?
Click to expand...

People liked the DVX100B over numerous HD cameras of the time. Why? The HD cams had SUPERIOR resolution, but the image of the DVX had something they liked. Even as other cameras added 24P to match...people still loved the DVX. The Canons appeal to some people in much the same way (the "look" of the image)...after all most consumer HD video cams have more resolution.
It's the large sensor/interchangeable lens video people have been wanting for years. And for under $3,000 bucks the choices are still limited for large sensor video - A handful of DSLRs from assorted makers, and the Sony VG series. That's it. Panasonic and Canon (now Nikon) are the most committed to adding audio/a selection of frame rates/manual control. So people look, decide which one suits them and there you go....some choose Panasonic, some choose Canon. (then others prefer the NEX or Nikon)
 
I'm a call Bs on this....

Through Post grading you can basically make almost any camera match color wise. Through different lenses you can achieve similar dof. What you cannot do though is ass resolution. While some consumer cameras might have sharper image, they lack dynamic range and low light sensitivity. As we all know Dslr's changed that.

These people created a crazy hack for the GH2 that really made it something amazing, honestly nothing can compare for $499 (current GH2 price). Also like you said though, if you like the image from a Canon more and like the lenses the feel everything then fine. My whole point was I cannot shoot extreme wide shots with detail in them due to the lack of resolution of the Canon dslrs. I believe it is somewhere near 700 lines (not even 720p).

Medium shots and close ups with shallow dof you can do some really nice images, but the technology is old and I feel has been surpassed. This thread may never end, but what I can say is we are spending to much time arguing over "fluff" when we should be creating Art
Peace
 
I never said the Canon was better, not once (I'm actually eyeing the GH2 with my credit at Adorama)....my whole point initially was exactly that - either system affords the ability to put creativity to use. Totally agree there - The art matters the most, no matter how one decides to produce it.
 
5D3 footage after post sharpening holds up very well on my 23'' monitor. Wides show adequate detail and closeups look gorgeous. I'm happy with it, end of story.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
People liked the DVX100B over numerous HD cameras of the time.
Click to expand...

Over the HD cameras available in 2004? Which HD cameras are you referring to that people preferred over the DVX100B? And who were these people?

Even as other cameras added 24P to match...people still loved the DVX.
Click to expand...

Except I recall a massive switch over to the HVX200 when it first arrived.
 
Gary Huff said:
Over the HD cameras available in 2004? Which HD cameras are you referring to that people preferred over the DVX100B? And who were these people?



Except I recall a massive switch over to the HVX200 when it first arrived.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the DVX100B. There is even a 3 camera review on these boards done by Barry Green from years back comparing the DVX100B, a Sony FX HD camera and a Canon XL2 (I believe). Then for years after people still purchased/shot with the DVX100B over the new HD cams coming out.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I'm talking about the DVX100B. There is even a 3 camera review on these boards done by Barry Green from years back comparing the DVX100B, a Sony FX HD camera and a Canon XL2 (I believe).
Click to expand...

The Sony FX camera was terrible, even at the time, and the XL2 wasn't HD.

So between the DVX100B and the HVX200, people still chose the B? What's your evidence for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top