5D MKIII specs

 
The 80-200 isn't a very old lens. I haven't used one myself I only use primes. It's cheaper to just get a 90 and a 135 or 180.
 
Some of the 35-70s (The f/3.5) were made in Japan and are Minolta designs. I *think* the later 35-70s were made in Germany.
One lens I don't see mentioned much is the 180 f/3.4 Apo-Telyte-R which I have, and by golly it's sharp, even wide open.
I do like the 21 Super Angulon, but it's a bit slow at f/4 and has a really odd looking aperture, sort of square with extended corners, but it has a 330deg focus throw, and as far as I can tell has ruler-straight drawing, even on full-frame.

The 19mm f/2.8 goes for about £1000 or so, if you can find one. Red-Dot Cameras has one as I write for £999
 
daveswan said:
Some of the 35-70s (The f/3.5) were made in Japan and are Minolta designs. I *think* the later 35-70s were made in Germany.
One lens I don't see mentioned much is the 180 f/3.4 Apo-Telyte-R which I have, and by golly it's sharp, even wide open.
I do like the 21 Super Angulon, but it's a bit slow at f/4 and has a really odd looking aperture, sort of square with extended corners, but it has a 330deg focus throw, and as far as I can tell has ruler-straight drawing, even on full-frame.

The 19mm f/2.8 goes for about £1000 or so, if you can find one. Red-Dot Cameras has one as I write for £999
Click to expand...
I was thinking more of I the 70-210mm, where if I remember rightly the optical design was virtually the same as the Minolta MD Rokkor lens of similar specifications. I just found the info on the link below which explains a bit more.
http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00GhCG
 
PappasArts said:
Just checked that out in 1080P. At the 34 second mark, you see how the image should look. There's no reason the video off this sensor going through the latest digics should not be doing the same. However it gets quite mushy when it snaps from still's to video mode. After 4 years, this should have been the jump up from the 5DMII. Thanks for sharing John.

This is at the 34 second mark- watch in 1080P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTEV6_os4gY&feature=player_detailpage#t=34s


Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/pappasarts
Click to expand...

The stills were shot in Live View mode, 1/50, same ISO, F-stop, etc., right before recording video. The still was a JPG, dropped into the PPro sequence and downscaled (as opposed to a high quality scaler in Photoshop or other tool).

Three possible reasons why downsampled JPG still quality is not in the final output for video:

1. Sensor readout speed is too slow; binning method loses information.
2. Compression implementation/settings looses too much information. The still has gone through JPG and two passes of H.264 compression, with the final displayed at youtube 5Mbps(?) 1080p.
3. Business reasons.

Compared to ProRes 422 10-bit at 91Mbps, 91Mbps H.264 420 8-bit ALL-I should look much better coming out of the camera. Considering the quality of 50Mbps 422 MPEG2 coming out of the C300, ~40Mbps 420 H.264 should look as good or better in terms of compressor efficiency: H.264 is more efficient vs. MPEG2. Thus, it's possible a firmware update could improve quality.
 
Well, I guess it's damned if you do...

squig said:
Haven't heard from Kholi for a while. Either he's collapsed or he's holding up a liquor store. Or perhaps he's just comatose in front of that big screen of his...hehe. If you go back about 50 pages you'll see that nostrasquig did predict his MKIII purchase.
Click to expand...

squig said:
Respect to Kholi to for all his past work...bit slo on the take this time bro but I know you'll catch on fast. Kholi has always hassled me to write and that's what I've been focusing on the last couple of years. I'm starting to sound like I'm accepting an oscar so I'll shut up now.
Click to expand...

And, damned if you don't.

You told me to shut up, people complained so I didn't say anything, and then you want me to say something. LoL. Maybe this is how Barry feels.

But, trust me, I won't be buying an MKIII unless VK buys one, hacks it, and it starts looking better. Dustylense was kind enough to provide video after I asked about his stills, I thanked him for it. I saw the same thing that Hans and Lammy saw, but I didn't want to get beaten down like you guys pretty much beat them.

Good shooting, thanks for the info, but my mind hasn't been changed in the slightest.

Lammy said:
Y
2) For that £3000 upgrade for simply videos, I can rent Epics and Alexas or buy an FS100 - geez.
Click to expand...

You know? the FS100 and External recorder is beginning to pique my interests... I've never been a SONY fan but that might change...
 
Lammy said:
Whilst I find it amusing the amount of penis swinging, I really must say - taking 6 photos at 6400 ISO within 1 second in a studio with strobe lighting is... excessive and retarded. Are you trying to bully me into buying features I'd never use? Hahaha!

I'm not a landscape photographer - I do plain ole background work with products, actors, business people etc. In that regard, a 5D2 is more than ample for now. Although admittingly, a hasselblad would be better for more bigger gigs but they're a rarity for now so dropping £40,000 is out of my league... so far.

Apples and oranges dude. Aronofsky still loves shooting 16mm, Terry Richardson uses old point and shoots, GF1, and Nikon D3. Whatever works.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But can your camera take a strobe shot at 6 frames a sec raw in a studio? What if you were shooting a model doing action poses, and were using a prophoto or broncolor pack, dialed all the way down so your recycle rate was super fast but leaving you at 50 watt seconds? How about the same system outdoors using a infrared camera/strobe trigger system while shooting the lastest Range Rover splashing though the mud and wanted strobe to freeze the water mud splash? Does the mk2 have that ability? What if you're using strobe out doors at night and wanted to balance with the city lights behind the subject, where you only need 15 watt second lights for model but 6400 for the ambient? Ever shoot out of a helicopter near twilight? 6400 again would help. How about shooting olympic track and field with some of the fastest sprinters coming at you though a 400mm. Will your AF system or my AF system be up one another. Lets not forget weather sealing. That doc in the jungle might be easier to shoot with better weather sealing.
I'm not pissing on your mk2, I've used on every shoot for the past 3 years. What I'm trying to tell you is that with the upgrades, there are more than just new functions. There are now more creative possibilities. You can;t use them if you don't have them. But you don't have to use them if your camera has them. Flexibility is key though. Some of my base ISO for location strobe lighting with 4000 watt packs was ISO 320. I now can set same iris, and use 1000 watt packs and not fear ISO1250. Ever carry a 4000 watt pack around all day? How about 3 of them? Every single feature on the mk3 concerning stills is a serious upgrade. The body right down to the CF card door.
 
jcs said:
Three possible reasons why downsampled JPG still quality is not in the final output for video:

1. Sensor readout speed is too slow; binning method loses information.
2. Compression implementation/settings looses too much information. The still has gone through JPG and two passes of H.264 compression, with the final displayed at youtube 5Mbps(?) 1080p.
3. Business reasons.
Click to expand...

my theory is that there's line skipping in video mode (as in previous models, to get a faster sensor readout and avoid problems with the rolling shutter), and then some crazy math to avoid aliasing/moire
 
dustylense said:
The body right down to the CF card door.
Click to expand...

Noticed that too.

My second 5D3 showed up today, haven't opened the box yet. Definitely keeping the first one for full frame and stills. Thinking about getting a different kind of camera for the 2nd camera. Since the FS100 price drop, along with a Metabones adapter for Canon lenses, might make a nice complement to the 5D3, especially for longer shots and outdoor wide shots that need max detail. Need to see how the internal codec looks- separate recorder is too much complexity for what I need. Alternatively, a pure video camera would also be helpful for handheld live interviews: image stabilization and autofocus (with a manual option and high-quality view/peaking assist, etc.).
 
Kholi said:
Well, I guess it's damned if you do...





And, damned if you don't.

You told me to shut up, people complained so I didn't say anything, and then you want me to say something. LoL. Maybe this is how Barry feels.

But, trust me, I won't be buying an MKIII unless VK buys one, hacks it, and it starts looking better. Dustylense was kind enough to provide video after I asked about his stills, I thanked him for it. I saw the same thing that Hans and Lammy saw, but I didn't want to get beaten down like you guys pretty much beat them.

Good shooting, thanks for the info, but my mind hasn't been changed in the slightest.



You know? the FS100 and External recorder is beginning to pique my interests... I've never been a SONY fan but that might change...
Click to expand...
Not here to beat anybody down. I'm here to share info, suggestion, exploration and yes, even my point of view. But it really started with the mk3 being soft. So I shot a test and gave it some sharpening. Some may think too much, some may think not enough. But the fact is it can be done, and done to one's taste. I guess I got a bit confused when people were making claims about the camera without having one in their hands and referring to youtube footage. All the while I was putting different glass on the physical camera and seeing what it can and can't do. And I found that you could in fact make the image plenty sharp. People were yelling out "600 LINES" and noise at 100 ISO, but without even having the camera to back it up. ANd then you have Andrew of EOSHD. THey guy speaks before he thinks. I guess a way to get blog traffic is to say "STOP, the camera sucks". Of course people are going to read all about it. Didn't he say early on that the C300 was a 420 bit depth camera? YEP. Look and read his blog. The guy flip flops more than a politician in the hot seat.
There is no one camera for everybody.
 
jcs said:
Noticed that too.

My second 5D3 showed up today, haven't opened the box yet. Definitely keeping the first one for full frame and stills. Thinking about getting a different kind of camera for the 2nd camera. Since the FS100 price drop, along with a Metabones adapter for Canon lenses, might make a nice complement to the 5D3, especially for longer shots and outdoor wide shots that need max detail. Need to see how the internal codec looks- separate recorder is too much complexity for what I need. Alternatively, a pure video camera would also be helpful for handheld live interviews: image stabilization and autofocus (with a manual option and high-quality view/peaking assist, etc.).
Click to expand...

If you're looking for a pure video camera with autofocus, manual, peaking, all the bells and whistles, (I'm assuming a 1/3 chip) but don't want to break the bank. Let me point you at the XF100. I have the XF105 and I LOVE IT! Wonderful codec, wonderful size, wonderful quality!
 
Samuel H said:
my theory is that there's line skipping in video mode (as in previous models, to get a faster sensor readout and avoid problems with the rolling shutter), and then some crazy math to avoid aliasing/moire
Click to expand...

I think it's just pixel binning (averaging multiple Bayer photosites: fast hardware operation). "Crazy math" would be too expensive for the hardware. Averaging down 4 green and 9 red & blue photosites works based on the sensor resolution and the target 420 color sampling. This makes Y resolution slightly soft; U & V full resolution for 420. However, the quality we are getting does not match what I would expect from that method: it appears lower resolution. Waiting to hear from Canon what they are doing (they have a nice whitepaper for the C300).
 
dustylense said:
If you're looking for a pure video camera with autofocus, manual, peaking, all the bells and whistles, (I'm assuming a 1/3 chip) but don't want to break the bank. Let me point you at the XF100. I have the XF105 and I LOVE IT! Wonderful codec, wonderful size, wonderful quality!
Click to expand...

It's on my radar- how's the low light? Any reason to consider the XF30x?
 
jcs said:
It's on my radar- how's the low light? Any reason to consider the XF30x?
Click to expand...
Low light is pretty good considering a single 1/3 cmos. Codec rocks. Xf300 is a fine camera if it were your main camera (pretty canon pricey). But the size of the XF100 combined with its power and features are pretty hard to pass up. I'd be down to link up with you in your neck of the woods and shoot around Beverly with the Mk3's and my XF105 so that you could put it to real use. I live not to far from you.

In fact, take a look at this piece shot on the XF100!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
You guys better not be shooting. I just got back from one and what gives? No comments for 3 hours....... I need my fix. Should I stir the fire with input like the Mark III is too sharp and resolves 3300 lines?
 
Kholi said:
You know? the FS100 and External recorder is beginning to pique my interests... I've never been a SONY fan but that might change...
Click to expand...

There's a lot to like about it, but the sensor reflection issue scares me a bit and the highlight rolloff isn't great. Frank's been doing some great work with profiles and 60p 1080p is cool. Far too many tweakable parameters for you mate, you'll be tweaking and peeping around the clock for the next 6 months!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top