5D MKIII specs
- Thread starter squig
- Start date
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I'd say 50mm F1.4 from Sigma. I used this lens for a few projects courtesy of Sigma (they wanted me to test it on a video production) and I was VERY impressed with the quality of the lens. In fact, a friend of mine with a 5Dm2 bought one after he saw how well it performed, and he is NOT someone who likes Sigma products. (I like their primes, I hate their zooms).
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
It depends. There are dreadfully videoish shots there too. As well, you'll also find 5DIII sharp footage ;-)
HansSteinert
Well-known member
That has more to do with lighting and color grade than anything else. I can make Red shots look videoish. In terms of the image quality of the camera itself, that video is astonishing.
I have not seen any 5D III footage that compares to that video. Have you? If so, please share, because deep down I still want a 5D III since all my lenses are full frame
HansSteinert
Well-known member
I love Sigma primes as well. I have the 85mm f1.4 and the 50mm f1.4. I give Zeiss the edge for video application simply due to the focus ring smoothness, but I love my Sigmas... especially since I do photography too.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
So, lighting is not part of video then? Not only you "can make Red shots look videoish"... ;-)That has more to do with lighting and color grade than anything else. I can make Red shots look videoish. In terms of the image quality of the camera itself, that video is astonishing.
I have not seen any 5D III footage that compares to that video. Have you? If so, please share, because deep down I still want a 5D III since all my lenses are full frame
On the second part of your post, yes, some shots already shown, made with the 5DIII can be compared not to that video, but the sharpness offered by hacked GH series ...on FF. One of the few eyes that still figure out anything on the subject matter, were still trying to convince himself (Kholi) there was some sharpness post processed on Mario & Nette or Color of Hope samples, so...
This coexists with soft footage too. Sure, it is like useful and useless posts. There are everywhere : D In the same boards as well
And I am not even referring each one of you, even if coming to a thread of another camera to post and praise another one has a name: trolling. As everything in life, there's one advantage at least. It does bring discussion, this is always welcome! : )You're comparing 4/3" to FF. There is a full misunderstanding in a lot of heads over here. You can ask sharper outcome from a new camera like 5DIII or anyone else. No one can ask from FF what 4/3" gives to you. The opposite applies the same. Sigh.
The most funny is your post is coming from a guy which name I recognise now (do you believe in coincidences? I do, more than 'my camera is better than yours' rubish talk
once today I was downloading some samples (that your 4K experience, as for instance) done a year ago if I am not wrong (therefore to call it some sort of coincidence) by... you. Good talent! Pity you hadn't chosen some expert to address the casting for you. No irony or cheap criticism, OK? The actors are not bad, but they don't have profile for that piece. The screen is demanding. Apart that, what is possible to see about your route is promising in any case -- kudos to you! : )mmm uh? Why, why WHY is so difficult to understand that the GH2 resolves real 1080 LINES regardless of lighting, sensor size, lenses, subjects whatever you wanna put in it. Its pure math. Do we need to start a lesson of what a "pixel" is? Because seriously when I see those answers seems like going back to the start.
Read this:
Last edited:
HansSteinert
Well-known member
Well, yes it is. But that isn't something worth considering when judging the camera itself.
Please show me these examples that demonstrate comparable resolution. I want to believe.
This coexists with soft footage too. Sure, it is like useful and useless posts. There are everywhere : D In the same boards as well
Sometimes soft is good. You can make a sharp camera soft with filters and post work, but you can't really do the opposite as well.
What? Sensor size doesn't impact possible resolution. It impacts depth of field and the production cost of lenses. It also allows for better low-light performance since you have a greater space to fix X amount of pixels, thus the pixels can be bigger = less noise relative to iso (I think????).
The most funny is your post is coming from a guy which name I recognise now (do you believe in coincidences? I do, more than 'my camera is better than yours' rubish talk
I think you have me confused with somebody else :/
Oh and the tone of this post may seem blunt. If so, sorry. Wasn't intended. I'll add some smilies here to lighten the mood:
*_*
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Man, I am one of the GH series defenders and its use among other footage, even posting on reduser on the subject, no need to preach me
Only with an exception. Now that you speak about to go back to the start. Everything is related to perception too...Read this : D
Well, you are not that Sandro, but you speak like you could have ever shoot with any one of these cameras
Definition is actually what «a cheap attempt to fool people» is. Only to have numbers on the table, when we deal with perception, it is plain misleading. Above all, external to us, more in the psychology realm. For some reason in the film school where I learned and in the curricula where I have lectured, psychology program included or not in other program of studies is mandatory if you want to conclude your education and training.
If it is possible someone to claim that dvxuser is a good plataform for it. Here, all of us look like to be at the same level. And this is far away to be true : )
A lot of people here think why got money for a GH2, they will be able to beat the 'inferior' 5DIII. The point is either of both are 'inferior' in a lot of or some features. Period. FF is not even comparable to the crop format like your Rebel model. There's no camera winner, my dear fellow. Just different capture devices
I can somehow barely agree with you when you say «they didn't want to invest resources to deliver a real 1080p video». But again, it is partially true. Why? Are we speaking about what Canon?! There are many Canons inside the company ;-)
Last edited:
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
The examples were already referred in my post. To which we can add now my last one as response to Sandro.
I think not. Tell me you
http://vimeo.com/17616317
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfn-Zh0fAm4&list=UUQNvb8D-4oLyNXEEyVywD-A&index=7&feature=plcp
The finest example why it doesn't matter a better camera when it is well executed. And you know what? I doubt you had had better results with the GH series, but quite the opposite. The story fits better the suitable device, that is, the softness offered by Canons. Why? In a word, intimacy.
It is all about perception!
But do not try to convince yourself of the same during the fundraising... LOL
Man, I am one of the GH series defenders and its use among other footage, even posting on reduser on the subject, no need to preach me
Read this : D
Touché
KahL
Well-known member
Just leave it alone man. People want to be fans, so just let 'em be. I'm already test driving the GH2 now anyhow lol
HansSteinert
Well-known member
The examples were already referred in my post. To which we can add now my last one as response to Sandro.
I think not. Tell me you
http://vimeo.com/17616317
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfn-Zh0fAm4&list=UUQNvb8D-4oLyNXEEyVywD-A&index=7&feature=plcp
The finest example why it doesn't matter a better camera when it is well executed. And you know what? I doubt you had had better results with the GH series, but quite the opposite. The story fits better the suitable device, that is, the Canons' softness. Why? In a word, intimacy.
It is all about perception!
But do not try to convince yourself of the same during the fundraising... LOL
Haha, well for the record, that 4K test was a gimmick because I knew it would increase views. I almost feel embarrased having the 4K link posted here. You see, ever since youtube added 4K capability, people had been googling "4K" into Youtube a lot, so I decided to play around with some settings a bit and see what I could cook up. I kinda feel foolish doing that in retrospect, but whatever. It worked, ha. And the results weren't bad surprisingly... but the title is hugely misleading.
The upscaling thing I used from Magic Bullet is actually pretty good, but I think I added way too much sharpness. And the denoiser plug-in... love that thing. Although I know more about it now than I did when I did that video! And the grain I added on top was actually from a tutorial either here or cinema5d.
Glad you enjoyed it though! It was for a college assignment. Practically 0 budget, I was doing everything, and I had to use freinds and not actors. I'm just glad it turned out relatively enjoyable given the situation. I would love to collaborate with other filmmakers and talent on a project! Would be so much more efficient and less limiting.
The thing is, I believe I can make a GH2 look like it has the Canon softness. But can we do the opposite?
Last edited:
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Sorry me, mate. But the only class I am aware of, after to have known the red fanboys, is the GH buddies. Similar credo. No one can love the camera if lies in bed with someone else : D
HansSteinert
Well-known member
Funny coincidence, isn't it? Today. About something a year ago. I believe in God. You?
To mimic a FF wide shot on 4/3" side is kind of cruel.
Oh I know, I love the look of a fast wide prime on a 5D. I'm hoping 5D III downloadable footage with i-frame gets released and proves me wrong. I really hope.
KahL
Well-known member
Funny coincidence, isn't it? Today. About something a year ago. I believe in God. You?
To mimic a FF wide shot on 4/3" side is kind of cruel.
Oh I agree, there are a few types. It just appears now w/ the 5DIII, the Canon defense force is in full gear and we're getting all sorts of odd justifications.
It wasn't too long ago where I wasn't in favor of the GH2. But, then all these hacks surfaced, the dynamic range improved and akin to my support for Magic Lantern: if the aftermarket mods make the OEM that much better, who am I to deny the upgrade?
Besides, $1000 for the body and I get stills-class video quality in a s16 sized sensor? I'd be an idiot to deny it at this point. Seriously, MJPEG at 100Mbps? WTF?! That's nuts for the price. Like a baby Scarlet, really.
I just want better image quality for my cinematography. I've found that brand loyalty will only get you so far...unless they're your sponsors, that is.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Some people did make a big deal about resolution, that said, the hugest cries about the 5Dm2, 7D etc was the moire/aliasing. Given I have a 7D I can tell you, that ultimately, the moire was THE highest thing on my list I did not like about the 7D.
Second on that list is rolling shutter. As I've stated before, we shoot a lot of kinetic action at times. We had to stop doing this with the 7D as it looked horrible. You can get by with skew, which is the slant in the image, as I've seen movies with it, that said, most times, jello which is the vertical compression decompression is a lot worse (in my opinion) and is a huge distraction. I mean, if you hold a rope in your hand and move back and forth, the wind drag alone creates a skew in the rope you are holding. It's something at least your eye has seen. With jello, unless you eat a lot of jello AND play with it, is something you probably don't see that often.
If you are a 5D shooter right now, going to the GH2 is going to be A LOT harder than going to the 5Dm3. First, the crop sensor means none of your lenses are going to shoot the same. Second, from what I can tell so far, you are still going to deal with the same rolling shutter on the GH2 compared to the 5D. And of course third, none of your automatic lenses are going to work without an adapter that isn't here yet.
If resolution is all that matters to you, and you aren't invested, then sure, a GH2 sounds like a good idea. If low light, rolling shutter, Full Frame means more to you, than the 5Dm3 is for you. It's not one wins the other loses, it just depends on what you need.
I know this gets repeated a lot, but let me say it again, the 5Dm3 is a stills camera first, period. Until the GH2 is a better stills camera than the 5Dm3 then trying to compare them as to what Canon's motivation is will not make sense. Canon has already told you they are making a Full Frame camera that is 4k that looks like the body of the 5Dm3. Seriously, if you think they are trying to pull one over on you, ask yourself, then why would they tell you about the cDSLR in the first place? Obviously they are working on the camera everyone seems to want, and guess what, the 5Dm3 is not it. If they wanted to dup people into getting the 5Dm3 then release the cDSLR I could see the complaint, but clearly, they understand.
If I were to try and guess what they did, they put together the stills requirements first, then, they looked at the needs of a still photographer using a 5D to see what would make sense for them. The whole reason video is in the 5D in the first place, as far as I was told, was so that reporters out in the field could actually shoot some video as well, and not need 2 pieces of equipment. I feel like they looked at what processing power they had with what they made, and tried to put in as much as they could WITHOUT the price sky-rocketing for them.
If the 7Dm2 has all the same advancements as the 5D for APS-C, I will replace my 7D without question. I use my 7D as a stills camera first. The thought of moire free (or reduced heavily) and better rolling shutter, count me in.
If you can't see the value in the 5dm3 at $3500 then accept the reality that the camera isn't designed or marketed for you. I had to learn this with the C300 no matter how much I felt about the price. I am NOT the target audience. Period. Sure, it doesn't change the fact it disappointed me that they've taken so long. But at the same time, I don't see the cost of the C300 as trying to "rip me off" because, as I said, that implies it was targeted for me.
I see the same with the 5Dm3. Look at it from a stills perspective, or ask a stills shooter who is interested in getting one to evaluate the cost. Everyone ALWAYS wants something for cheaper, that's natural. Did I want to pay $5500 for my FS100, no, I'd have gladly paid less.
Had this been the cDSLR and the performance was what we are seeing, well then yes, I could understand the complaints.
Second on that list is rolling shutter. As I've stated before, we shoot a lot of kinetic action at times. We had to stop doing this with the 7D as it looked horrible. You can get by with skew, which is the slant in the image, as I've seen movies with it, that said, most times, jello which is the vertical compression decompression is a lot worse (in my opinion) and is a huge distraction. I mean, if you hold a rope in your hand and move back and forth, the wind drag alone creates a skew in the rope you are holding. It's something at least your eye has seen. With jello, unless you eat a lot of jello AND play with it, is something you probably don't see that often.
If you are a 5D shooter right now, going to the GH2 is going to be A LOT harder than going to the 5Dm3. First, the crop sensor means none of your lenses are going to shoot the same. Second, from what I can tell so far, you are still going to deal with the same rolling shutter on the GH2 compared to the 5D. And of course third, none of your automatic lenses are going to work without an adapter that isn't here yet.
If resolution is all that matters to you, and you aren't invested, then sure, a GH2 sounds like a good idea. If low light, rolling shutter, Full Frame means more to you, than the 5Dm3 is for you. It's not one wins the other loses, it just depends on what you need.
I know this gets repeated a lot, but let me say it again, the 5Dm3 is a stills camera first, period. Until the GH2 is a better stills camera than the 5Dm3 then trying to compare them as to what Canon's motivation is will not make sense. Canon has already told you they are making a Full Frame camera that is 4k that looks like the body of the 5Dm3. Seriously, if you think they are trying to pull one over on you, ask yourself, then why would they tell you about the cDSLR in the first place? Obviously they are working on the camera everyone seems to want, and guess what, the 5Dm3 is not it. If they wanted to dup people into getting the 5Dm3 then release the cDSLR I could see the complaint, but clearly, they understand.
If I were to try and guess what they did, they put together the stills requirements first, then, they looked at the needs of a still photographer using a 5D to see what would make sense for them. The whole reason video is in the 5D in the first place, as far as I was told, was so that reporters out in the field could actually shoot some video as well, and not need 2 pieces of equipment. I feel like they looked at what processing power they had with what they made, and tried to put in as much as they could WITHOUT the price sky-rocketing for them.
If the 7Dm2 has all the same advancements as the 5D for APS-C, I will replace my 7D without question. I use my 7D as a stills camera first. The thought of moire free (or reduced heavily) and better rolling shutter, count me in.
If you can't see the value in the 5dm3 at $3500 then accept the reality that the camera isn't designed or marketed for you. I had to learn this with the C300 no matter how much I felt about the price. I am NOT the target audience. Period. Sure, it doesn't change the fact it disappointed me that they've taken so long. But at the same time, I don't see the cost of the C300 as trying to "rip me off" because, as I said, that implies it was targeted for me.
I see the same with the 5Dm3. Look at it from a stills perspective, or ask a stills shooter who is interested in getting one to evaluate the cost. Everyone ALWAYS wants something for cheaper, that's natural. Did I want to pay $5500 for my FS100, no, I'd have gladly paid less.
Had this been the cDSLR and the performance was what we are seeing, well then yes, I could understand the complaints.
Man you had me with your leave it alone post but now you're just being rude. This is a Canon 5klll thread and I guarantee you lately its all canon bashing and the Gh2 fanboys running rampant on every thread trying to justify I don't know what. Play with your Gh2 and like you said leave it alone. What you're' writing has been written a million times already so there must be other reasons besides what you find glorious about the Gh2 that others don't.
I agree with what you're saying , we're going to the subjective area here though. BUT I THINK (hope) what everyone (at least I) wanted was a good/decent/UPGRADE of (and no, fixing moiré only which already that filter does is not an upgrade) the video quality in all the 2012 DSLRs from the 5d to the next 1200D which is very possible for them to do. Instead they're giving the same quality to the new series BUT you get a 4k no one* could ever afford since it will cost at least $5k IMHO! So they're asking more money basically, wouldn't it be more remunerative for them to -destroy- the competition with an amazing $800 650D both photographer and videographer would buy in millions instead of giving only real HD video to 4k camera the mass cannot afford?
Last edited: