5D MKIII specs

dustylense said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cool story bro... I'll bear the 5D3's features in mind when I have a mind to use them...
 
cowpunk52 said:
Wait - you don't? ;)
Click to expand...

I finally began to tweet the other day just to chat to him about the MKIII. Been meaning to meet up with him when he was here 2 years running now but he keeps coming when I'm shooting or in a pre-prod frenzy.

twitter is really annoying, nothing I have to say fits into a tweet!...I have to script edit everything I say! :badputer:
 
dustylense said:
By the way, been testing highlight tone priority and so far so good.
Click to expand...

Interesting! Something I would like to know: Philip Bloom said that rolling shutter is still quite present. But I've seen decent MIII-footage with 50mm handheld out of a driving car. Impossible with the MKII!
 
Dusty, any chance you could download the PB video review and throw it on drop box? Vimeo's download limit for regular users is kicking my butt, and I'm anxious to see it in full resolution on my big screen!
 
dustylense said:
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!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I agree, the XF100 is a very good camera for the price.


Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/pappasarts
 
I thought PB's review was very well done. It's a bit frustrating to have to sharpen everything in post but those images look significantly better than what I was seeing elsewhere. Really, really wish it did 1080 60p, would pick one up right now if so.

I have a question about the audio though. Is it actually usable for a pro shoot? Or is it just a better scratch track? I keep hearing all this praise about the adjustable audio and the headphone jack...but is anyone really running audio through these on real shoots? I have a potential shoot in Israel/Palestine this fall and would LOVE to bring the MkIII along, IF I can run audio into it during the interview portion.

Any MkIII owners have feedback on this?
 
I personally don't mind the sharpening in post. It does suck that it NEEDS to be done, but knowing that the codec shows gorgeous results after being applied, well.....so yeah, I guess I'm not getting a GH2 after all *sighs*
Ah well, MKIII it is :)

So now here's my question: WHY would Canon resort to creating this method of downsampling on the sensor to "mask" the real resolution of the video image? It's quite odd, because I'm seeing the sharpened image appear comparable to the GH2 and C300. It's bizarre, really. It doesn't look "sharpened", but more "unmasked", which puzzles the living hell out of me.

Would it be a case of Canon trying to keep the markets separate? The pro-sumers will get muddy looking video, while the pros (or even mildly educated) will just know to sharpen in post to unmask the real resolution of the image?
It's incredibly odd, but the proof is in the pudding...'err, LITERALLY in this case.
 
Last edited:
HOLY CRUD! Just downloaded the P Bloom and watched it. WOW! Double WOW! It's all I can say! Uploading to the shared dropbox I have set up. DOWNLOAD THE THE VIMEO or PM me for the dropbox link.
 
dustylense said:
HOLY CRUD! Just downloaded the P Bloom and watched it. WOW! Double WOW! It's all I can say! Uploading to the shared dropbox I have set up. DOWNLOAD THE THE VIMEO or PM me for the dropbox link.
Click to expand...

I know, right? It's not even recognizable. First question on my mind was "okay, why are you using a C300 as an example?". If this is what the camera is capable of, it most definitely ends the "resolution" arguments I, or anyone else may have had for that matter.
 
KahL said:
So now here's my question: WHY would Canon resort to creating this method of downsampling on the sensor to "mask" the real resolution of the video image? It's quite odd, because I'm seeing the sharpened image appear comparable to the GH2 and C300. It's bizarre, really. It doesn't look "sharpened", but more "unmasked", which puzzles the living hell out of me.
Click to expand...

I really don't think anyone is masking anything... people have decided that sharpening the footage makes it look better, that's all. If you go and put the camera up against either of those two, as a few people have illustrated, it's still pretty clear that no amount of sharpening will get it to that level. But, it's making people happy and that's what counts.

On the other hand, Canon has made it pretty clear--through their actions and very open (public) announcements that they have cameras aimed directly toward video markets either available or to-be-announced-and-sold. The MKIII is not labeled EOS-C.

NAB being literally right around the corner, next week will see people beginning to really question wtf just happened.

Feel free to quote me during that time.
 
Kholi said:
I really don't think anyone is masking anything... people have decided that sharpening the footage makes it look better, that's all.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And KahL dude :P Strange, but you suddenly decided that the footage of the 5D3 is so good after seeing dustylense's footage... despite having a heated argument with jcs (who previously released footage with greater potential for info with his car, bricks, and chart examples :P )

Geez I honestly don't think me and Kholi were that stubborn or unreasonable on our opinion on its video quality originally or now even.

Looking forward to NAB... kinda oh god the forum and rumour mill page addiction is getting too strong...
 
Kholi said:
I really don't think anyone is masking anything... people have decided that sharpening the footage makes it look better, that's all. If you go and put the camera up against either of those two, as a few people have illustrated, it's still pretty clear that no amount of sharpening will get it to that level. But, it's making people happy and that's what counts.

On the other hand, Canon has made it pretty clear--through their actions and very open (public) announcements that they have cameras aimed directly toward video markets either available or to-be-announced-and-sold. The MKIII is not labeled EOS-C.

NAB being literally right around the corner, next week will see people beginning to really question wtf just happened.

Feel free to quote me during that time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, NAB will be interesting. But I'm starting to ponder this. Look what ML did to the 5dmk2. What are the possibilities of the mk3 after those guys dive into it?
 
Kholi said:
I really don't think anyone is masking anything... people have decided that sharpening the footage makes it look better, that's all. If you go and put the camera up against either of those two, as a few people have illustrated, it's still pretty clear that no amount of sharpening will get it to that level. But, it's making people happy and that's what counts.

On the other hand, Canon has made it pretty clear--through their actions and very open (public) announcements that they have cameras aimed directly toward video markets either available or to-be-announced-and-sold. The MKIII is not labeled EOS-C.

NAB being literally right around the corner, next week will see people beginning to really question wtf just happened.

Feel free to quote me during that time.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not so sure I agree with that sentiment anymore, man.

Remember, I was right along with you on MKIII disappointment train. With money in hand to purchase a GH2...remember, not even more than several pages ago this was for me. Then I saw some of dustylense's footage which COMPLETELY changed my course of thought and now even more so w/ Bloom's review.

It doesn't appear to be a placebo at all, man. I'm open in Premiere now, working on some C300 files and just watched the review, jaw agape. I have no attachment to this camera in the least, in fact, I was more AGAINST it than anyone else (remember my rantings?).

I mean, if it's not your cup of tea, then totally understandable. But, I can now see that the situation ISN'T a hoax after all. That is, of course, if all of these images are in fact from the MKIII and not a C300 model.
 
Lammy said:
Agreed. And KahL dude :P Strange, but you suddenly decided that the footage of the 5D3 is so good after seeing dustylense's footage... despite having a heated argument with jcs (who previously released footage with greater potential for info with his car, bricks, and chart examples :P )

Geez I honestly don't think me and Kholi were that stubborn or unreasonable on our opinion on its video quality originally or now even.

Looking forward to NAB... kinda oh god the forum and rumour mill page addiction is getting too strong...
Click to expand...

ANybody can wake up at any time. Khal admitted his dark side and I'm happy that he has found new light. We're all guilty of that from time to time.
 
KahL said:
I'm actually not so sure I agree with that sentiment anymore, man.

Remember, I was right along with you on MKIII disappointment train. With money in hand to purchase a GH2...remember, not even more than several pages ago this was for me. Then I saw some of dustylense's footage which COMPLETELY changed my course of thought and now even more so w/ Bloom's review.

It doesn't appear to be a placebo at all, man. I'm open in Premiere now, working on some C300 files and just watched the review, jaw agape. I have no attachment to this camera in the least, in fact, I was more AGAINST it than anyone else (remember my rantings?).

I mean, if it's not your cup of tea, then totally understandable. But, I can now see that the situation ISN'T a hoax after all. That is, of course, if all of these images are in fact from the MKIII and not a C300 model.
Click to expand...

I'm more than certian that ALL THE IMAGES are the Mk3. I'd trust having Philip watch over a suitcase full of $100 bills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top