5D MKIII specs

dcloud said:
would love to use this cam for low light scenes.
Click to expand...

It's a low light monster. I'm putting it to work shooting a short for my feature in a few weeks. It's mostly night/available light. I did some tests on location with the MKII and 1250 ISO just didn't cut it. This baby looks good up to 6400!
 
squig said:
Josh over at dvinfo mentions-

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F5F5FF"]One note: with the 5d2 I always turned sharpening to minimum to reduce moire. When I tried this with the 5d3 (level 0) footage was horribly soft (unusable). Sharpening at 2 to 3 seems to be the sweet spot. Above this digital nasties creep in.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-e...274-first-impressions-rough-ready-sample.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up and yes, that is the best looking MKIII footage I have seen. But, if you watch the next video in his channel "GH2 recording with a PIX 220" the joy ends. Now that is some detail... I have GH2s and if I can use a PIX 220 with the thing there is no need for a MKIII for video.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Thanks for the heads up and yes, that is the best looking MKIII footage I have seen. But, if you watch the next video in his channel "GH2 recording with a PIX 220" the joy ends. Now that is some detail... I have GH2s and if I can use a PIX 220 with the thing there is no need for a MKIII for video.
Click to expand...

 I don't see any difference between that footage and regular hacked footage without the PIX 220 tho?
If anything this regular old 44mbps hack in camera footage looks better
 
Probably true except for sync'd audio. I was speaking more to the fact that I thought the MKIII footage was pretty detailed (for what it is) until watching the GH2 video brought me back to reality.
 
squig said:
It's a low light monster. I'm putting it to work shooting a short for my feature in a few weeks. It's mostly night/available light. I did some tests on location with the MKII and 1250 ISO just didn't cut it. This baby looks good up to 6400!
Click to expand...
yes. its simply no longer 'which camera is better' but rather 'which camera is the best for this certain type of situation'.
 
Very interesting. So no one wants to do lighting anymore or are we referring to other than DR variances between the cameras?
I'd love to see a table some day.
camera models on top axis, features on left and dots to block out the middle.
 
dcloud said:
yes. its simply no longer 'which camera is better' but rather 'which camera is the best for this certain type of situation'.
Click to expand...

If I was shooting wide landscape shots in daylight I'd grab a GH2 but I'm shooting in places at night without a permit so lighting is a no no. There is no camera that's good for every scenario Epic and Alexa included. Try mounting an Alexa to a dashboard or putting it in a fridge! I need a POV shot with a rifle butt hitting the actress in the face, I can live with destroying a NEX-5N to get that shot....hopefully it will survive though.
 
squig said:
I need a POV shot with a rifle butt hitting the actress in the face, I can live with destroying a NEX-5N to get that shot....hopefully it will survive though.
Click to expand...

I like the way you don't even mention anything about destroying the actress' face or her survival haha!
 
Lammy said:
I like the way you don't even mention anything about destroying the actress' face or her survival haha!
Click to expand...

Hehe, I just told her last night that I'd changed the ending and she was going to get hit with the rifle butt. I told her it wouldn't hurt....much. She said as long as it wasn't me wielding the rifle she was cool with it. Wait till you see what I do to her in the feature! I'm gonna be the one behind the camera, if anyone's face gets messed up it will be mine....You have to suffer for your art.
 
HansSteinert said:
http://philipbloom.net/forum/threads/5dmk2-next-to-5dmk3-frame-still.1261/

5D III looks softer than the 5D II in this particular comparison.

http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/22/5dmk3/
Click to expand...

Why post this? Did you miss the last couple of pages of this thread? The people in your links obviously don't know what the people at DVinfo know about getting a sharp image out of this cam. Let's not continue the misinformation about the 5DIII being soft when it's not true. I think there's still some confusion out there at the moment. One thing seems certain from DVinfo not to mention the unicycle video Dusty posted. An acceptable sharp image can be had from the 5DIII, and it's head and shoulders above the 5DII.
 
f64manray said:
Why post this? Did you miss the last couple of pages of this thread? The people in your links obviously don't know what the people at DVinfo know about getting a sharp image out of this cam. Let's not continue the misinformation about the 5DIII being soft when it's not true. I think there's still some confusion out there at the moment. One thing seems certain from DVinfo not to mention the unicycle video Dusty posted. An acceptable sharp image can be had from the 5DIII, and it's head and shoulders above the 5DII.
Click to expand...

The content at DVinfo has too much digital sharpening. Looks good on textures but skin looks plasticy.
 
Last edited:
f64manray said:
Why post this? Did you miss the last couple of pages of this thread? The people in your links obviously don't know what the people at DVinfo know about getting a sharp image out of this cam. Let's not continue the misinformation about the 5DIII being soft when it's not true. I think there's still some confusion out there at the moment. One thing seems certain from DVinfo not to mention the unicycle video Dusty posted. An acceptable sharp image can be had from the 5DIII, and it's head and shoulders above the 5DII.
Click to expand...

He posted it because it's relevant. And, it's from a major blogger (albeit that doesn't mean it's immediately credible), more information for people to digest.

You know what I saw on DVinfo? Personally? A bunch of stills that looked like my old HPX170 footage with coring ramped up to +2. That's what I saw, just like Hans. Only, I disagree that it looks good in any way. That girls hair consistently looks like a big mushy mess, and her skin looks like someone put a halloween mask on her.

So the more information out there the better, right now I'm astonished that people even think this is a step forward. but apparently the more info that comes around the more minds get changed in a positive way.

I'd sure like to change my mind in favor of a full frame image.
 
It's obvious this camera is not for everyone. Is it soft, plastic, noisy? First, it's to this day a stills camera. Those of you that have worked with the 5dmk2 and like it, what is your problem? The only thing that made me look into other cameras was the presence of moire and aliasing. I think it's safe to say that the 5dmk3 has curbed that. Thats what I wanted anyway. Sure, the gh2 is going to out resolve the 5dmk3. I have one and did a shoot with it the other day. It's a POS in terms of camera IQ. I know that working with the canon is far better. The color and highlight rolloff is better (too me) than the gh2. I will keep the gh2 for "that" shot it handles better. But if I were to go on safari or shoot an exotic documentary, I would easily pick the 5dmk3 because it's able to take a FAR superior still image and deliver a video clip that is unique to any other camera. Try and bump your hacked gh2 up to 6400. Looks like crap. Now push it to 10,000. From what I've seen the 5dmk3 is a lowlight beast!!!!
One of the best 5dmk2 shorts I've ever seen http://vimeo.com/11339453 So a camera that cures its set backs, moire and aliasing, all of a sudden is not a powerful tool?
Some more forgotten 5dmk2 vids worth a look
http://vimeo.com/5410762
http://vimeo.com/11203709
http://vimeo.com/29932789
 
It's ok guys some will like it and some won't. I received mine this morning and could not be happier with it for what I do (strictly music videos and event recap videos) Everyone has different applications they are using these cameras for so instead of trying to convince people to think a certain way about it just let it go. No one is going to win this argument. It's a lost cause.
 
dustylense said:
It's obvious this camera is not for everyone. Is it soft, plastic, noisy? First, it's to this day a stills camera. Those of you that have worked with the 5dmk2 and like it, what is your problem? The only thing that made me look into other cameras was the presence of moire and aliasing. I think it's safe to say that the 5dmk3 has curbed that. Thats what I wanted anyway. Sure, the gh2 is going to out resolve the 5dmk3. I have one and did a shoot with it the other day. It's a POS in terms of camera IQ. I know that working with the canon is far better. The color and highlight rolloff is better (too me) than the gh2. I will keep the gh2 for "that" shot it handles better. But if I were to go on safari or shoot an exotic documentary, I would easily pick the 5dmk3 because it's able to take a FAR superior still image and deliver a video clip that is unique to any other camera. Try and bump your hacked gh2 up to 6400. Looks like crap. Now push it to 10,000. From what I've seen the 5dmk3 is a lowlight beast!!!!
One of the best 5dmk2 shorts I've ever seen http://vimeo.com/11339453 So a camera that cures its set backs, moire and aliasing, all of a sudden is not a powerful tool?
Some more forgotten 5dmk2 vids worth a look
http://vimeo.com/5410762
http://vimeo.com/11203709
http://vimeo.com/29932789
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think the camera is inherently plasticy. Imagines in general get plasticy when users try to compensate for low resolution with excessive digital sharpening. That's what we're seeing here I think. The 5D III resolves about the same resolution as the 5D II, and people are increasing in-camera sharpness to try to convince themselves it resolves more detail. With the examples PB posted, it didn't look plasticy because he wasn't trying to whore the DS. It looked soft, but not plasticy, and I prefer that by far... but still dissapointed overall.

I have a 5D II. It's my primary camera. It is a powerful tool, my dissapointment lies not with the 5D II, but with the 5D III's perfomance relative to the 5D II and relative to cheaper alternatives. Sure, moire and aliasing is fixed, but I'm not convinced the 5D III's image is much better than my 5D II with my AA filter yet. Iso performance passed 3200 isn't hugely relevant to me based on what I shoot.

If you're shooting passed 3200 iso consistantly than the 5D III is a no-brainer.
 
using the shots from the pbforum, I've put together a quick mouseover comparison of the center, in-focus area of the shots; it's at the end of this page:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/iso/5d3.html

the 5D2 has more detail, but I'm not sure it's actual detail, or false detail of the kind that also creates aliasing/moire
the white horizontal strips in the windows are the easiest place to look at the loss of detail in te 5D3, and the dark spots in the bricks, and white lines between them, are the easiest place to look for false detail in the 5D2

the loss of detail that I see here will not be solved with any kind of sharpening, in camera or in post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top