5D MKII vs 5D MKIII for video shoots

S

spikerules

Member
Hi all,
I am looking at a B camera to go alongside my Sony FS-100. Which of the two above would be ideal? I am thinking that the MKII is more appealing to me as it is now around £1500 and is a lot less cash and almost within my budget. Is the MKIII THAT much better at shooting moving images than the MKII?

Thanks
Costa
 
spikerules said:
Hi all,
I am looking at a B camera to go alongside my Sony FS-100. Which of the two above would be ideal? I am thinking that the MKII is more appealing to me as it is now around £1500 and is a lot less cash and almost within my budget. Is the MKIII THAT much better at shooting moving images than the MKII?

Thanks
Costa
Click to expand...
If you need to shoot under low (or no) light circumstances and to move your camera but not aliasing/moiré ;-) yes.
 
Emanuel said:
If you need to shoot under low (or no) light circumstances and to move your camera but not aliasing/moiré ;-) yes.
Click to expand...

Well I will not be shooting in extreme low light scenarios... I have an abundance of LED lights at my disposal. So would the mkii be ok for me?
 
spikerules said:
Well I will not be shooting in extreme low light scenarios... I have an abundance of LED lights at my disposal. So would the mkii be ok for me?
Click to expand...
It depends on the way you find aliasing and moiré pattern an issue... There's also the audio support. MKIII is the 1st version of 5D series to provide it.
 
if you don't need the low light of the 5D3, and can get around the aliasing/moire issues of the 5D2 just by using the other camera for the troubling shots, I think you can save a few $$$$ and go for the 5D2
 
If you get a Mark II you will still need to invest another $400 on the VAF-5D2 anti-moire filter. You WILL encounter moire and aliasing in your work on that camera and you won't know until it's too late (finding it later in your rushes), so better be wise to figure that in from the beginning.
 
Emanuel said:
It depends on the way you find aliasing and moiré pattern an issue... There's also the audio support. MKIII is the 1st version of 5D series to provide it.
Click to expand...

yoclay said:
If you get a Mark II you will still need to invest another $400 on the VAF-5D2 anti-moire filter. You WILL encounter moire and aliasing in your work on that camera and you won't know until it's too late (finding it later in your rushes), so better be wise to figure that in from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for the information guys. I was unaware of the aliasing issue! I guess I better save my pennies for the mkiii.

Costa
 
I just went through sort of the same decision process, I needed another camera for video and I needed a full frame body for architectual stills, but I didn't necessarily need the features of the 5D3 for $1,700 more dollars.

Thus far, I haven't regretted the Mark II. If you've got another camera for wide shots in video anyways, it's still an amazing camera.

This is coming from the guy who has always tried to buy the newest things right when they come out...I'm considering this an exercise in restraint and pocketbook philosphy, and it's working, so far!
 
the 5dlll IS INDEED worth the extra money if its in your budget. less aliasing/moire, better high ISO function, better audio, less jello...
 
if you already have an FS100 for the troublesome shots, I think the 5D2 is a very viable option... but you have to know when those aliasing/moire issues will arise!! as soon as anybody says something like "I was unaware of the aliasing issue!", I know they'll be scared to death when they find out how bad moire is - (side note: I'm currently editing a war short film, and moire is showing all around the uniforms, absolutely everywhere; it would be hell to fix it in post, so, as it is just a personal project, I think I'll leave it there, just so future me, 20 years from now, can remember what tools I had when I made this; a client wouldn't be so understanding)
 
I did some camera tests for my film a couple of months ago with the MKII and it fell over in the low light, aliasing, and moire tests. I went back to the same locations last week with the MKIII and it passed all the stress tests with flying colours. On the MKII shot I had to push the exposure in post. I pulled back the exposure on the MKIII shot. The focus point isn't matched but you can see how much cleaner the MKIII image is, I also stopped down the lens a couple of stops for deeper DOF. I did some post sharpening on the MKIII image in FCP7 and graded both files heavily with magic bullet looks.

MKIII 5000 ISOtrain 2.jpg
MKII 1250 ISO Tuwa 2s.jpg

In real world shooting situations the MKIII leaves the MKII for dead.
 
Last edited:
squig said:
I did some camera tests for my film a couple of months ago with the MKII and it fell over in the low light, aliasing, and moire tests. I went back to the same locations last week with the MKIII and it passed all the stress tests with flying colours. On the MKII shot I had to push the exposure in post. I pulled back the exposure on the MKIII shot. The focus point isn't matched but you can see how much cleaner the MKIII image is, I also stopped down the lens a couple of stops for deeper DOF. I did some post sharpening on the MKIII image in FCP7 and graded both files heavily with magic bullet looks.

MKIII 5000 ISOView attachment 52055
MKII 1250 ISO View attachment 52056

In real world shooting situations the MKIII leaves the MKII for dead.
Click to expand...

I won't deny the 5DMKIII image has way less noise at a much higer ISO ;-) But I also have to say I really like to color tone of the 5DMKII image you show, very film like, a lot of noise, but light and color are very appealing here... I think you could achieve that on the MKIII... I have a 5DMKIII and although I have done no film with it yet, I love the new photo features. I'll be shoot with it very soon, in fact it just missed being used on a TV commercial by 2 days.

chris
 
C-Mac said:
I won't deny the 5DMKIII image has way less noise at a much higer ISO ;-) But I also have to say I really like to color tone of the 5DMKII image you show, very film like, a lot of noise, but light and color are very appealing here... I think you could achieve that on the MKIII... I have a 5DMKIII and although I have done no film with it yet, I love the new photo features. I'll be shoot with it very soon, in fact it just missed being used on a TV commercial by 2 days.

chris
Click to expand...

My white balance was warmer when I shot with the MKII. I'm with you on the colour tone on the MKII shot, it was a real effort to get the cool MKIII shot to look like the MKII and it still isn't quite there. The MKII also has less dynamic range at high ISOs.
 
I think maybe once have I encountered a situation where 1250 wasn't enough. Don't get me wrong, It's always nice to have more, but realistically it's very rare for me to need above 640 on the MK2.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
I think maybe once have I encountered a situation where 1250 wasn't enough. Don't get me wrong, It's always nice to have more, but realistically it's very rare for me to need above 640 on the MK2.
Click to expand...

It's not so much a matter of low light as it is about getting deeper depth of field with a full frame sensor. In the examples I posted 1250 ISO wasn't enough because I had to shoot at f/2 and the background was more blurred than I wanted for the shot. The only other way to get the shot I wanted with the MKII would be to light the whole platform which would have cost thousands of dollars.
 
Good point. I very, very, very rarely shoot in public where I can't light, so it doesn't even occur to me. I'm pretty much the antithesis of Dogma 95 in the sense I'd shoot everything on a soundstage if I could afford it. Hate having to use "real" locations. I use them, but only when there is no other option.
 
love the matrix-ish CC on the mk3 shot, very nice :)


squig said:
I did some camera tests for my film a couple of months ago with the MKII and it fell over in the low light, aliasing, and moire tests. I went back to the same locations last week with the MKIII and it passed all the stress tests with flying colours. On the MKII shot I had to push the exposure in post. I pulled back the exposure on the MKIII shot. The focus point isn't matched but you can see how much cleaner the MKIII image is, I also stopped down the lens a couple of stops for deeper DOF. I did some post sharpening on the MKIII image in FCP7 and graded both files heavily with magic bullet looks.

MKIII 5000 ISOView attachment 52055
MKII 1250 ISO

In real world shooting situations the MKIII leaves the MKII for dead.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top