5D Mark III or 7D Mark II?

[pulpfiction007]

I know the XL2 wasn't HD...I was just describing the camera review Barry did. My evidence....Lonesome Jim, November, A Scanner Darkly, Iraq in Fragments, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Puffy Chair, and countless other shows/projects/films shot with the DVX100 while the XH A1, the HVX, and other HD cams were available. Also, reading these boards there are countless posts of people sticking with it as the HD era was ushered in. The DVX100 was just discontinued this year.
Of course I'm not saying everybody would choose a DVX100 B over the HVX, but many many people did.

 

[Gary Huff]

No, we chose the HVX. That camera was a freaking miracle at the time. Still remember the thrill of it.

I know! It was the IT camera. Everyone had one (a lot still do back in the closet! Some are even still shooting with it!).

Funny how the world has changed.

 

[Gary Huff]

My evidence....Lonesome Jim, November, A Scanner Darkly, Iraq in Fragments, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Puffy Chair,

All of these movies were shot before the HVX200 was released (which was in December of 2005). It's Always Sunny ended its first season that September. Your timing is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off.

Of course I'm not saying everybody would choose a DVX100 B over the HVX, but many many people did.

Nobody did from what you've shown yet.

 

[pulpfiction007]

You brought up the HVX...I didn't, don't really care. There were other HD cams available AND many if not all of these people could have shot film when these were made. The point still stands- they chose a standard def camera over higher resolution solutions. And go read through the forums- lots of people here stayed DVX for a long long time. "Nobody did"

Bull...t.

 

[Gary Huff]

You brought up the HVX...I didn't, don't really care.

and countless other shows/projects/films shot with the DVX100 while the XH A1, the HVX, and other HD cams were available.

The Canon XH A1 was released in November 2006.

What cameras are you talking about?

 

[pulpfiction007]

Since 2004 JVC has had HD cams, Sony had HD cams....but NONE of them were ever as acclaimed as the DVX. I've never seen a list of movies like the DVX has from any of the HD prosumer 3 chip cameras. The HVX would be the one with the most that I can find through searching. My point is... most of these people who made these movies could have shot on film, they could have shot with the JVC, or some with Sony cameras, they could have shot with any number of higher end cameras that had more resolution- but they didn't.
The same with Canon DSLRs.....
The episode of House could have been shot with any number of cameras, Like Crazy- same thing, the parts in Black Swan, - SOME people love the look- not everyone has to. Some prefer the GH series, and the same goes for those- movies have been made on those despite not being perfect either. The AF100 has been called soft, people still love that camera and on and on it goes. Movies are subjective. I love the Coen Bros and Tarantino, some people can't stand it. I call beautiful cinematography the shots in No Country For Old Men...some think it's boring and want in your face action and explosions. In the end it's like music or any other art- the most technological wonder does not equal the prettiest picture or the best art in everyone's mind.
Bleach by Nirvana does not have the fidelity of Michael Jackson's thriller - I'll still take Nirvana any day of the week.

 

[J.F.R.]

Since 2004 JVC has had HD cams, Sony had HD cams....but NONE of them were ever as acclaimed as the DVX. I've never seen a list of movies like the DVX has from any of the HD prosumer 3 chip cameras. The HVX would be the one with the most that I can find through searching. My point is... most of these people who made these movies could have shot on film, they could have shot with the JVC, or some with Sony cameras, they could have shot with any number of higher end cameras that had more resolution- but they didn't.
The same with Canon DSLRs.....
The episode of House could have been shot with any number of cameras, Like Crazy- same thing, the parts in Black Swan, - SOME people love the look- not everyone has to. Some prefer the GH series, and the same goes for those- movies have been made on those despite not being perfect either. The AF100 has been called soft, people still love that camera and on and on it goes. Movies are subjective. I love the Coen Bros and Tarantino, some people can't stand it. I call beautiful cinematography the shots in No Country For Old Men...some think it's boring and want in your face action and explosions. In the end it's like music or any other art- the most technological wonder does not equal the prettiest picture or the best art in everyone's mind.
Bleach by Nirvana does not have the fidelity of Michael Jackson's thriller - I'll still take Nirvana any day of the week.

I honestly still do not know why this debate continues? Whether you like Canon or GH image is irrelevant, my main point was Canon's Dslr's are not good for extreme wide shots due to the lack of detail. No "opinionated" look can say that looks good, because it doesn't. Aliasing, moire and mushy quality is just poor. This is the reason why Act Of Valor used film for the wide shots and the 5d for the closer shots.

Shane Hurlbut choice.... No doubt thougj I've seen amazing beautiful projects shot on 5d mark ii, 7d, etc. Amazing work, but I think that's more so the talent behind the camera. Regardless this has gone long enough, I'm done

Peace

 

[Donald Ong]

Aliasing, moire and mushy quality is just poor.

Nonsense. At least with the mark3, moire/aliasing are out of the equation. Mushy quality? Really? I just projected a film i shot with the mark3 for a client on an 80'' screen and the wide shots looked GORGEOUS. Yeah, fine, if you went 2'' from the screen you would probably see it's a little soft...but really, who does that? Your audience definitely won't. The mark3 holds up very well and i really don't think you can call it mushy...because it isn't.

 

[henryqiu]

Same for me. I changed from Canon to the GH3 for the same reason. .. I have used the 60D and 5D MII a lot over the last 2 years so I am not biased.

Does that apply to 5D Mark III or the unknown 7D Mark II?

See the title of this thread.

Switch from 60D and/or 5D2 to GH2/3? Fine, a good decision!

But switch from 5D3 to GH3? Maybe not as good a decision, at least to some shooters. Take myself for an example: given my lens collection, batteries, high capacity fast CF cards (about 120GB total) and so on, switching from 5D3 to GH3 will waste a lot of money and force me to give up a lot of pro-grade features (shallow DOF, high ISO performance, & lots more) for nearly nothing but an increased video resolution (which somewhat matters typically only on super wide shots).

5D3 is indeed more expensive. But in my opinion its features and capabilities are well worth it. And I personally believe GH3's price range well reflects its features and capabilities too.

 

[nothing]

Wow this thread has gotten stupid fast (I feel like a broken record with the number of times I've said that around here lately).

It is a ridiculous viewpoint to assert that Canon is not a valid choice in this - despite the vehement rantings of internet fanboys who have not shot with the latest generation and who have never shot anything that anybody has seen. You can go on screaming GH2/3/4/5/6/7 all you want, we will go on using Canons to shoot things that millions watch every week - and none of them are complaining.

 

[Gary Huff]

It doesn't matter if the audience doesn't complain. The audience wasn't complaining about deep depth of field.

As a shooter, it's about what makes me happy. You shoot with what you want, but Canon DSLRs do not provide acceptable quality for me.

 

[8string]

@gary: if Canon Dslrs don't make you happy, then why waste your time on this board?

@OP:As someone who owns both the 7d and MKiii, my opinion is buy the mkiii if you want better video, stick tothe 7d for stills, for the price differnence. If you are ok with the 7d video you are getting, stck with it. Big difference in price. Don't wait for 7d2 unless youcan afford to. The mkiii is a distinct improvement over mkii and 7d. Big diff.noticeable.

 

[J.F.R.]

Wow this thread has gotten stupid fast (I feel like a broken record with the number of times I've said that around here lately).

It is a ridiculous viewpoint to assert that Canon is not a valid choice in this - despite the vehement rantings of internet fanboys who have not shot with the latest generation and who have never shot anything that anybody has seen. You can go on screaming GH2/3/4/5/6/7 all you want, we will go on using Canons to shoot things that millions watch every week - and none of them are complaining.

I can assure Over 50+ projects I have done on Canon + Red Cameras (shot.edited.etc.), I can speak.......





I do this for a Living professional and work within the Industry.
Peace

 

[Gary Huff]

@gary: if Canon Dslrs don't make you happy, then why waste your time on this board?

I'm sorry you feel threatened by differing opinions.

 

[Abaddon]

Wow, this thread turned into a monster.

Since I'm in no rush to buy a camera today, waiting to see what the 7D2 brings won't be too bad. I've been very happy with my 7D but I would like to see an improvement in low light performance and aliasing reduction. I shot with the 5D3 and loved the improvements there. It's still a camera I'll consider in the spring if the 7D2 doesn't impress me.

 

[JoeJITSU]

It doesn't matter if the audience doesn't complain. The audience wasn't complaining about deep depth of field.

As a shooter, it's about what makes me happy. You shoot with what you want, but Canon DSLRs do not provide acceptable quality for me.

Exactly! Everyone has their own opinion. I love my Canons. In my part of the country..They demand for Mark II's or better. It could be different elsewhere.

 

[maarek]

This thread is completely bonkers. But why spoil the fun, I'll continue.

I do this for a Living professional and work within the Industry.
Peace

Is that why all of your videos are badly lit? The cameras aren't doing it for you? Peace.

While GH2/3 owners are making boring videos, Canon users are actually making interesting films and making millions of views on youtube. And not just lame ass music videos but actual content too. Something that GH2 users are not familiar with.

HVX200? That had about 720p resolution, if that. The canon 5dmarkIII gets more. Plus looks sexier. And is for smarter people.

Yes, it is about the camera. If it wouldn't be then GH2 users would have films that someone had actually seen right? Yes, I am being a bit nillywilly but hey. There's some truth here.

 

[Gary Huff]

While GH2/3 owners are making boring videos, Canon users are actually making interesting films and making millions of views on youtube.

Please. I'm embarrassed for you.

HVX200? That had about 720p resolution, if that. The canon 5dmarkIII gets more.

Actually, they resolve about the same.

Yes, I am being a bit nillywilly but hey. There's some truth here.

Actually, very little truth. Just a bunch of misnomers.

 

[pulpfiction007]

This thread is completely bonkers. But why spoil the fun, I'll continue.



Is that why all of your videos are badly lit? The cameras aren't doing it for you? Peace.

While GH2/3 owners are making boring videos, Canon users are actually making interesting films and making millions of views on youtube. And not just lame ass music videos but actual content too. Something that GH2 users are not familiar with.

HVX200? That had about 720p resolution, if that. The canon 5dmarkIII gets more. Plus looks sexier. And is for smarter people.

Yes, it is about the camera. If it wouldn't be then GH2 users would have films that someone had actually seen right? Yes, I am being a bit nillywilly but hey. There's some truth here.

https://vimeo.com/gamiorbegoso/httpwwwfacebookcompagesmusgo229913677100591 Made with a GH2


https://vimeo.com/9796533 Made with a GH1

ALL of these cameras are being used to do great work. To say they aren't is completely false.

 

[J.F.R.]

This thread is completely bonkers. But why spoil the fun, I'll continue.



Is that why all of your videos are badly lit? The cameras aren't doing it for you? Peace.

While GH2/3 owners are making boring videos, Canon users are actually making interesting films and making millions of views on youtube. And not just lame ass music videos but actual content too. Something that GH2 users are not familiar with.

HVX200? That had about 720p resolution, if that. The canon 5dmarkIII gets more. Plus looks sexier. And is for smarter people.

Yes, it is about the camera. If it wouldn't be then GH2 users would have films that someone had actually seen right? Yes, I am being a bit nillywilly but hey. There's some truth here.

I just seen this post now, let me see some of your work.
-------------
EDIT
A quick search brought up a project you did which displayed amazing lighting and photography skills, my apologies, thank you for showing us your excellent skills as a director of photography and the millions of youtube views and dollars you are making....... Such amazing color and lighting, truly inspirational...........