5D MKII vs 5D MKIII for video shoots

[dustylense]

I will add to what Squig is saying. It's not about enough lighting for a 1250iso. The mk3 can easily hit 5000iso and 6400iso that is cleaner than 1250 on the mk2. So if your shot is good at 640 f/2 on the mk2 but your focus is difficult to deal with, with the mk3 you hit 5000iso at 5.6 and hold better focus, better iris for most lenses (prime iris), and more control over the scene in general. You're not stuck at F/2 with no headroom to control iris and overall DOF. I've even seen clean acceptable 12800 iso shots. Then add that if you hit a 360 degree shutter (1/24th) for a static shot add another stop to it's control. Thats 4 stops you have in the decision to control your DOF and without any added noise (assuming 5000iso is your breaking point). That FF is a hell-of-a B**ch for focus pulls and hitting it properly. Now that is just for lowlight. How about normal light or set lighting where you're in the 320iso range. Focus DOF of 1.5 feet to 8 feet. Steadicam work anybody?
On the stills side, the Mk3 kills the mk2.
On the build, the Mk3 kills the mk2.

 

[ROCKMORE]

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

After the 3 year wait I'm picking up an MKII. If you want to shoot at night then the MKIII is the answer. I generally shoot with plenty of light and for the extra cash I'd opt for another fast lens. If the MKIII fills your requirements then go for it. If it's not an emergency then I'd save the cash for a little longer and see what else comes up.
For gadgets like the audio jack, I use a mixer and a shotgun when audio is important.

 

[Adam J McKay]

I think the moire and aliasing problem on the mk2 is overstated. Yes when it happens its bad, can it be easily avoided? Yes. Does the average person notice it? Not really. Can the 5D2 sill create stunning images? No, as no camera has ever produced a stunning images. Right now is also the perfect time to grab a mark 2 as the used market is slowly becoming flooded with them. Then you can afford a lens or 2 to go with it. Plus it's got more dynamic range than the 2 according to dx0mark.

 

[squig]

I think the moire and aliasing problem on the mk2 is overstated. Yes when it happens its bad, can it be easily avoided? Yes.

I have to disagree. I'm always careful with wardrobe choices but still have moire issues with clothing, and how do you avoid moire in actors hair and eyebrows particularly? I'm really happy I don't have to worry about moire anymore. I upgraded for the high ISO boost more than anything else but the moire/aliasing free images are a huge plus. As is the IPB codec, the 60p, and higher resolution! The MKIII has more dynamic range at high ISOs. No dynamic range boost at lower ISOs is a bit of a bummer but it wasn't something I couldn't work around on the MKII. Cinestyle is more useable on the MKIII with it's lower noise.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

I think the moire and aliasing problem on the mk2 is overstated. Yes when it happens its bad, can it be easily avoided? Yes. Does the average person notice it? Not really. Can the 5D2 sill create stunning images? No, as no camera has ever produced a stunning images. Right now is also the perfect time to grab a mark 2 as the used market is slowly becoming flooded with them. Then you can afford a lens or 2 to go with it. Plus it's got more dynamic range than the 2 according to dx0mark.

I actually see it on television pretty regularly now, Moire. It's a tip off they shot with DSLR. Saw it on mythbusters the other night, obvious moire on a chain link fence. Doubt anybody but camera nerds noticed it though.

 

[maarek]

I actually see it on television pretty regularly now, Moire. It's a tip off they shot with DSLR. Saw it on mythbusters the other night, obvious moire on a chain link fence. Doubt anybody but camera nerds noticed it though.

You sure about that? Some tv's do deinterlacing in a way that will create moire and aliaising. Also if happen to use old composite videocables, you may create all kinds of colored artifacts.

I really doubt the Mythbusters team use DSLR's (unless for some very specific shots), all the material I've seen has been 2/3" cameras.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

You sure about that? Some tv's do deinterlacing in a way that will create moire and aliaising. Also if happen to use old composite videocables, you may create all kinds of colored artifacts.

I really doubt the Mythbusters team use DSLR's (unless for some very specific shots), all the material I've seen has been 2/3" cameras.

I have seen MK2s off to the side in the show (you know when the cameraman gets caught in frame). DSLR are being used extensively by cable TV, especially reality shows. I was at a horror con the other weekend and SyFy channel was there, shooting on MK2s.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

I think the moire and aliasing problem on the mk2 is overstated. Yes when it happens its bad, can it be easily avoided? Yes. Does the average person notice it? Not really. Can the 5D2 sill create stunning images? No, as no camera has ever produced a stunning images. Right now is also the perfect time to grab a mark 2 as the used market is slowly becoming flooded with them. Then you can afford a lens or 2 to go with it. Plus it's got more dynamic range than the 2 according to dx0mark.

I can't tell you how many shots I've had ruined by the 5d2's aliasing.

 

[kostas]

The mk3 can easily hit 5000iso and 6400iso that is cleaner than 1250 on the mk2.

I have not seen a side by side test of the ISO performance between mkii and mkiii, however from the comparisons to the Nikon D800, it appears that Nikon's 1600 ISO looks almost as bright as Canon's 3200, and as a result may also exhibit more noise than Canon @1600. Looks like Canon has ISOs scaled differently so as to exhibit less noise at higher ISO number. But it looks almost like a cheat.
I remember a similar issue with the ISO comparison between the GH1 and the 5d mark II (ISO 800 on the GH1 looked almost as bright as ISO 1600 on the 5d II under the same conditions).

I am currently thinking to sell the 5dII to get the 5dIII, mostly because of the stills performance evolution, and for the "facelift" in the video performance as well, although the European price tag of 3.000-3.600 Eur makes me think I will be throwing away money for a facelift rather than for a new camera.
I am not looking at the Nikon D800 currently because most of my vintage lenses cannot be adapted on Nikon body, but I feel a bit "trapped" by my lens choice...

P.S. I have found the video comparison http://vimeo.com/40113110

 

[nigelbb]

We have shot the 5D2 & 5D3 side by side. The ISO range matches i.e. we see the same exposure on both cameras with the same settings. On the 5D2 we would never exceed ISO3200 but on the 5D3 we can use ISO12800 & genuinely have two more stops of light. Which means we can either shoot in lower light or stop down so DoF isn't so extreme so it's easier to focus. We are also considering buying a 70-200mm F4L lens instead of the 70-200mm F2.8L that is double the price & double the weight.

 

[squig]

I concur on the 2 stop improvement, perhaps even 2.5 stops.

 

[nigelbb]

I concur on the 2 stop improvement, perhaps even 2.5 stops.

Agreed. TBH there doesn't seem to be any noise no matter how high you crank the ISO although it does eventually get worse in other ways as it starts to look very flat & lifeless & lacking in dynamic range but by that stage we are talking about filming a black cat in a cellar at midnight.

 

[dxl]

moiré/aliasing really isnt too much of a problem if you remember to turn off the sharpening on 5d2
but then i guess 5d3 will still have the edge that you can turn the sharpening to +2 or 3 during recording.

 

[maarek]

moiré/aliasing really isnt too much of a problem if you remember to turn off the sharpening on 5d2.

When did this happen? Moire/aliasing has always been quite a big problem on these cams, it has actually been the biggest complaint ever. And now it doesn't even matter? And I understand. We just did effects work on a commercial shot on the 5d mk II and there was moire/aliasing everywhere, hair was flickering different colors and of course the shirts were all rainbowy. It's horrible.

 

[squig]

moiré/aliasing really isnt too much of a problem if you remember to turn off the sharpening on 5d2
but then i guess 5d3 will still have the edge that you can turn the sharpening to +2 or 3 during recording.

Moire and aliasing was always a problem for serious narrative work with the MKII and I always had sharpness set to zero. I would never set sharpening above zero on the MKIII, everything I've seen above zero has looked bad. Zero with a touch of post sharpening is the way to go (see my results in this thread).

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Sharpening down all the way on the mk2 solves MOST of the aliasing problems (though shoot a street scene with a bunch of telephone wires sometime, it's still there). Moire continues to be an issue no matter what you do to sharpening on the mk2. It can be worked around, but it being gone is the one of the major reasons to look at the mk3.

 

[nikon_obsessed]

If you're using the mkiii's pic styles, only a slight improvement is visible compared to mkii. It is only when you start using things like Cinestyle, then you'll be able to tell how significant the improvement on mkiii's video is.

 

[Adam J McKay]

I have never encountered noticeable moire or aliasing on an actors hair or face in my shooting. I shot a feature this summer on the 5D and there are a handful of shots with moire and aliasing that I notice. But again, how many people in the screenings noticed? None. Also people accept moire and aliasing as "the way it is". TV is a heavily compressed signal and moire is usually visible on a large number of tv's from a large variety of channels. As for aliasing. People still think xbox games look great and you would have to sit down, point out and explain what aliasing is before anyone notices. People don't notice, we do. That's it. Is the 5D3 better at this most definitely, $1000 better? Not for some people. So I stand by my original statement that it is easily avoidable and a 5D2 and some lenses might go further than a 5D3 body for some folks. Pick the tool for the job and shoot something interesting. Now if you want to make a business shooting brick and roofing work...maybe save for the 3 :thumbsup:

 

[maarek]

Sure, if you don't shoot any wide angle scenes and everything is mostly blurry faces, then yeah the moire and aliaising will not be that noticeable. But if you do even a little bit of slowmotion (5d mark II doesn't have it but 7d and lower does) it completely breaks apart at 720p. Wide angle sharp shots are also pretty bad for example in the city with straight lines.

A lot of interviews have also gone a bit awry because of the moire, not to mention greenscreen work. So yeah, it is a big issue. But if none of your shots are the kind that breaks it up, then good I guess.

 

[eco_bach]

After the 3 year wait I'm picking up an MKII. If you want to shoot at night then the MKIII is the answer. I generally shoot with plenty of light and for the extra cash I'd opt for another fast lens. If the MKIII fills your requirements then go for it. If it's not an emergency then I'd save the cash for a little longer and see what else comes up.
For gadgets like the audio jack, I use a mixer and a shotgun when audio is important.

agreed. I just did the same.
If canon comes out with another FF DSLR with even more improved video features at a decent price point I'll pick one up ,sell my 7D and use the 5D2 as a backup. I don't shoot by moonlight or candle light very often and clean 1280-1600 ISO is sufficient for 90% of my needs.

It's been said a million times but the 5D3 is simply underwhelming as it is. Although am curious what magic lantern will bring to the table