5d mkiii vs the Sony

try before you buy - yes

try before you buy - yes

alaskacameradude said:
That's why I would advise the OP to try them both out. Obviously there are different opinions
here. Mine is that the 5d isn't nearly as good as the FS100. Yours is different. Maybe I like
the superior res and you like the Canon 'mojo ' who knows?
Click to expand...

As always, try before you buy if you're not sure - excellent advice. Rent them both, shoot some footage and see if it suits your needs. They are two dramatically different cameras in terms of workflow, handling and image. I need stills and for me its so much easier to get an image I'm happy with out of the 5d3. I just don't have the time or adequate knowledge to tinker with the gamma, black level, knee and such to figure out what will work best for the light and shooting situation I'm working under. I'm more of a stills guy that's also doing video. Outside of highlights, the FS100 output for me always had that strobe-ish video look with regards to people and motion - I couldn't find a PP that tamed that look. I'm not the best when it comes to grading - its a lot more straight forward with the 5d3 as its so much simpler to shoot flat, sharpen and make small adjustments in post - at least for me. YMMV. Fortunately for me I was able to shift the FS100 without losing any money. Any future camera purchases - like the BMCC I'm eyeing - will be rented first.
 
legrevedotcom said:
#3 Oh so you are one of the few who will get to do big screen material? I mean really? If so... why arent we talking Alexa or Red or F65?
Click to expand...

Oh come off it. Big screen material doesn't always mean a feature length film shot on Alexa with a multi-million dollar budget. I recently shot an ad that is being screened in cinemas and we ended up using a hacked GH2 for all of it bar maybe one shot that made the final cut.

Sometimes it's great to build a up a rig, shoot RAW and spend yonks grading but time is money. We wouldn't have even won the gig in the first place with an awful concept filmed on RED.

Use whatever gear makes your art/work the easiest and the rest will follow. I love operating a DSLR but tell me you want to shoot a project with an FS100 and I would be half tempted to put out an advert for a camera op.
 
nikon_obsessed said:
4:2:0, 4:2:2, just DARK ENERGY the damn thing and you dun need to worry about aggressive grading. Only 150 bucks and you're good!
Click to expand...

Dude, wtf is it with all this dark energy bs, if you want to participate in the thread, then add something meaningful. daa dark-enegee daa, did you learn a new buzzword or trolling for no good reason? Darkenergy yourself to an astronomy forum, or don't bother.
 
I was in the situation last year of chosing between an fs100 and mark iii. I was almost completely sold on the fs100 but then decided to show a variety of comparison clips from either camera (from vimeo) to a group of people who did not have a clue about cameras.

Every time they chose the mark iii as looking better than the fs100. This somewhat surprised me. They all said they felt the fs100's clips looked like video, or the "news". They felt that the 5d 's clips looked more film like. I ended up buying a mark iii. Was it the best choice? I have no idea, and still have not used an fs100.

I don't recommend purchasing a camera based on a few people's uneducated thoughts, but sometimes it is good to think more about the end result than chart, specs, or online blog reviews. If you are purchasing a camera to make money, consider what your client thinks looks good more than what you think looks good. If you are doing this as a hobby, buy whatever camera you want.
Anyways, I hope that made some sense, not a great writer.

Here is a great example (I think) of what the mark iii can do:


Also, I'll plug my own video. I just finished shooting and editing this documentary on a gh2 and mark iii:

 
mw5j1 said:
I was in the situation last year of chosing between an fs100 and mark iii. I was almost completely sold on the fs100 but then decided to show a variety of comparison clips from either camera (from vimeo) to a group of people who did not have a clue about cameras.

Every time they chose the mark iii as looking better than the fs100. This somewhat surprised me. They all said they felt the fs100's clips looked like video, or the "news". They felt that the 5d 's clips looked more film like. I ended up buying a mark iii. Was it the best choice? I have no idea, and still have not used an fs100.
Click to expand...


I'd have to agree. First off, I haven't used the fs100 so I can't judge it...but I have been using the mk3 for several months now.

I just did a shoot for an ad and documentary for a local telco company (will be published soon) and a lot the high ups there loved the image from the 5d3. Sharpness wasn't an issue as many here would like you to believe. They all thought the image looked super sharp and nice (I did post-sharpen). One guy also remarked that he "Couldn't believe that the image did not come from one of those *in his words* Big bulky movie cameras."
Also, the ad was played on the big screen for an event the company hosted. The image held up remarkably well.

Yeh, ok.... The 5d3 may not resolve as well as the fs100....but really...None of my clients have commented on the lack of sharpness yet. In fact many even thought it was super sharp. 5D3 may not be DVX's favourite camera, but sometimes the best image is not the one we think is best, but the one our clients think is best. If my client likes the 5d3, I really don't care if it resolves 1000+ lines or 700+ lines. Remember, we're an extremely anal bunch and we care about things most people couldn't care less about.

So yeah, the 5d3 is definitely a very capable camera and doesn't deserve the hate just becaue it resolves less lines than the GH2. It still has that 'magic' that makes people like it. A magic that I'm not able to explain.
 
I haven't shot with or have any experience with the 5DMKIII, but I have shot with and have experience with the 5DMII, the 7D and the T2i. I can say that I am very glad that I bought and use a FS-100. Just having focus peaking and zebra stripes makes life with the FS-100 so much better on a fast pace shoot. Throw in the low light capabilities and the ability to control your image with the picture profiles, which are, IMO, outstanding, and I can't even imagine going back to shooting video with a DSLR. I think that the DSLRs can have a slightly more "Pleasing" look "Out of the box", but I think that has a lot to do with their more baked in contrast and saturation. I'll take the control over the image that the FS-100 gives me.
 
mw5j1 said:
I was in the situation last year of chosing between an fs100 and mark iii. I was almost completely sold on the fs100 but then decided to show a variety of comparison clips from either camera (from vimeo) to a group of people who did not have a clue about cameras.

Every time they chose the mark iii as looking better than the fs100. This somewhat surprised me. They all said they felt the fs100's clips looked like video, or the "news". They felt that the 5d 's clips looked more film like. I ended up buying a mark iii. Was it the best choice? I have no idea, and still have not used an fs100.

I don't recommend purchasing a camera based on a few people's uneducated thoughts, but sometimes it is good to think more about the end result than chart, specs, or online blog reviews. If you are purchasing a camera to make money, consider what your client thinks looks good more than what you think looks good. If you are doing this as a hobby, buy whatever camera you want.
Anyways, I hope that made some sense, not a great writer.
Click to expand...

Good advice. I shot a freebie commercial for my wife's organization not too long ago when I was testing the A99, shot it side by side with the FS100 and the project wound up having corrupted audio files so some of it needed to be re-shot. Shoot #2 was with 5d3 after ditching the A99 (terribly soft video, horrible moire and aliasing) and when the organization's board watched the two versions I'd put together - one with the FS and one with the 5d3 because it was a PITA for my meager grading skills to match the colors - they almost unanimously preferred the 5d3 version. So that's the one they're putting on air. For me its about making those signing the checks happy, and the 5d3 doesn't disappoint.
 
Interesting.
I am not saying that the 5d is better than the fs100. I think I would really like it, especially the real video camera features, slow mo, and picture profiles. I just did not want to spend close to 5 grand on something that might not impress my client. However, it is funny when clients see what I am shooting video on and they can't get over the small cameras. The fs100 would probably add to some street cred, but obviuously in the end it doesn't matter.
 
David G. Smith said:
I haven't shot with or have any experience with the 5DMKIII, but I have shot with and have experience with the 5DMII, the 7D and the T2i. I can say that I am very glad that I bought and use a FS-100. Just having focus peaking and zebra stripes makes life with the FS-100 so much better on a fast pace shoot. Throw in the low light capabilities and the ability to control your image with the picture profiles, which are, IMO, outstanding, and I can't even imagine going back to shooting video with a DSLR. I think that the DSLRs can have a slightly more "Pleasing" look "Out of the box", but I think that has a lot to do with their more baked in contrast and saturation. I'll take the control over the image that the FS-100 gives me.
Click to expand...

I actually think this encapsulates a lot of the debate. If you want a better 'out of the box'
look, I think the 5dmk3 may be your choice. If you want more image control, the FS100 has
it. As for what 'clients prefer' that is really just a lot of anecdotal evidence. I have two large clients who
hire me on a semiregular (not often enough for my liking :-) basis to do video production and consulting
and video training. One owns companies and investments from San Diego to DC and wants to start
an in house media production team. Their corporate communications team looked at one of my FS100
corporate promos and some current promos done by a big budget firm they currently use that uses
5Dmk3s and they unanimously chose the FS100 image as 'looking better and more high end'.
They have bought FS100s for their new media production team and I am being hired to help
train them on the camera. Another company is a company that makes 'adult beverages' and is
well known in the western US. They were having a company out of CA do their corporate
videos using MK3s. When it came time to do their big piece about their company, I got
the gig as the FS100 image was again picked as 'looking more like a big budget piece'.
Really all this anecdotal evidence proves is that clients, like us, have a variety of opinions,
some liking one 'look' and others liking another 'look'. That's why you should try for
yourself and see what YOU think!
 
alaskacameradude said:
I actually think this encapsulates a lot of the debate. If you want a better 'out of the box'
look, I think the 5dmk3 may be your choice. If you want more image control, the FS100 has
it. As for what 'clients prefer' that is really just a lot of anecdotal evidence. I have two large clients who
hire me on a semiregular (not often enough for my liking :-) basis to do video production and consulting
and video training. One owns companies and investments from San Diego to DC and wants to start
an in house media production team. Their corporate communications team looked at one of my FS100
corporate promos and some current promos done by a big budget firm they currently use that uses
5Dmk3s and they unanimously chose the FS100 image as 'looking better and more high end'.
They have bought FS100s for their new media production team and I am being hired to help
train them on the camera. Another company is a company that makes 'adult beverages' and is
well known in the western US. They were having a company out of CA do their corporate
videos using MK3s. When it came time to do their big piece about their company, I got
the gig as the FS100 image was again picked as 'looking more like a big budget piece'.
Really all this anecdotal evidence proves is that clients, like us, have a variety of opinions,
some liking one 'look' and others liking another 'look'. That's why you should try for
yourself and see what YOU think!
Click to expand...

I totally agree with everything you said.

It is definitely hard to please everyone, and anecdotal thoughts and advice shouldn't be what makes your decision. I just found that charts and specs were influencing my decision more than what the end result would be. What I should have done is rented both and done some testing and then chose a camera.
If I owned each camera, I think they would both get used but the fs100 probably more due to the actual video camera controls.
 
I've used both of course. The FS100 has more controls over exposure, gamma and shadow control, more resolution and a host of great features over the 5D. But the Canon 5D uses longer focal lengths in general, and that makes it easier for shallow DOF. People - regular people - LOVE shallow depth of field. They will choose that over a deeper focus image any day of the week. If you show them shallow blurry stuff on Vimeo, they will drool over it and say it's oh so artistic and filmic. But the fact is that we're not all trying to shoot "Paris is For Lovers" the Polish brothers indie that was shot on the 5D. When you need that look though - hey, it's good the 5D is around and still kicking it, you know?
 
Pretty soon we'll be debating the merits of used F-3's against these cameras as that price is dropping quickly.
All of the comparisons are extremely subjective. Need to shoot stills too? FS100 makes no sense. Need to do slow motion? 5D3 isn't really going to cut it against the FS700. I've shot on all three and they definitely have their strengths and weaknesses, but the one I now own is the 5D3. Partly for cost, mostly for shooting stills, and partly for that "look" that I just don't get as easily with a Sony. Does that mean that everyone should get a 5D3? Of course not. Figure out what works for you.
As someone who's used all three, here's a few random thoughts on them... the Sony's do have that "Sony look" out of the box. You can change that somewhat, but it's there and it's why a lot of people don't think the camera looks as "film like". Ergonomics suck on the FS100. It's a box with identical shaped buttons so it's hard to hand hold and hard to hit the right button sometimes. The viewfinder tube is a joke. Audio on the Sony's is better and has XLR so if you're not doing dual audio that's a key feature, hell all the real video camera features on the Sony's are a big plus. The Sony's aren't weather sealed like the 5D3 or 7D, so you definitely need to bag it in any kind of wet weather. Sony's are bulkier obviously, which may not mean anything unless you have to scale mountains with it or carry it all day.
Image? Way too subjective. I prefer the Canon, but maybe that's also because I just didn't have the time, or really know how to squeeze the most out of the Sonys. In the end, which one would I choose if I had to buy a video only camera? A C100.
 
I don't even really know where to start - but with the poor audio and terrible mini hdmi I personally find all Dslr cameras basically unusable as an a camera on any professional projects

the fs100 has the minimum spec to be an A camera

sure a Dslr can do some pretty B roll

IMO there is no contest..

as for the ergonomics I personally think an Fs is better than both Dslr and also all the canons
 
Don't know much about it but I think there are films out there that hit the theaters that were shot on the 5d but I haven't seen or even heard of any films that were shot on the FS ever making it to the theaters. I can be wrong.
 
I can't remember the timeline but the f3 was out by the time the Fs was out - so it's not going to do a lot of high profile work ever - but that does not make it bad - the 5s are just wooly in comparison
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top