5D MrkIII vs BMCC

Frankly, I think they both look great. That being said, everyone knows the Mk. III is a bit soft out of the box but can be sharpened in post with pleasing results. So I'd like to see some graded comparisons, too.
 
And it's also looking at a limited subset of the things to compare between cameras. There is also workflow, form factor, availability of lenses, etc.. etc... What is a great camera for one person and what they are shooting might be a terrible camera for another.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
There is also workflow, form factor, availability of lenses, etc.. etc...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by any of this. First, workflow is actually ideal (in a Final Cut or AVID environment) if you shoot to ProRes/DNxHD...can't do that with a 5D. Second, form factor. Is it really that much worse than the 5D? I will grant the 5D a slight edge in run 'n gun shooting scenarios, but frankly the 5D is a terrible choice for that kind of shooting anyway, and I don't think anyone is under any misconceptions of using the BMD Jesus-cam for event videography. Finally, it has both an EF mount and, now, a m4/3 version, meaning you have an unlimited amount of lenses to choose from.

What exactly are your issues?
 
I don't have any issues, not interested in the cam so haven't really dug that deep into it. I am just noting they talk about image and don't talk about anything else. However, if it's an S16 sensor then yes, there will be a limited amount of lenses, especially wide. Also, though again not interested, I edit in Premiere. I don't know if I'd have to transcode or not because they don't really discuss it.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
However, if it's an S16 sensor then yes, there will be a limited amount of lenses, especially wide.
Click to expand...

If you edit in Final Cut Pro 7, and shoot ProRes to SSD, you don't have to transcode, and dumping the footage will be incredibly fast. You'll be editing in a third of the time you would be with 5D Mark III footage.

You're just talking wide lenses, and with the 7-14, the 12mm Hyperprime, and so on (in m4/3), you're options for wide are not limited at all. And you can use any lens you'd use on the 5D with the EF mount BMCC.
 
ALL I SAID WAS...

They compare image quality as if that's the only thing to compare between cameras... It's not. I didn't bash it, didn't tell anybody not to buy it, just said, OK, there's about 33% of the story, maybe you should look at the other 66% too. Vincent Laforet gives the most balanced and complete review IMO. There's good and there's bad, like EVERY camera.
 
Not really a 'fair' test when you realize we're talking about RAW vs compressed footage. The only major disadvantage of the Cinema Cam is also its advantage, namely shooting RAW. Even though its priced much, much higher, I would rather see a test comparing the C300 H.264 video quality against that of the Cinema cam.
 
Gary Huff said:
Then why are you leaving negative comments on issues you don't have knowledge of? That just makes it sound like you're a Canon 5D fanboy.
Click to expand...

Tired of people expressing their opinion and being accused of being a fanboy if it doesn't sync with the current hype.
Not a mention of the obvious moire in that video on the BMC side by comparison, nor the fact that he overexposed the 5D footage, nor the additional lowlight capacities from 1600-6400, nor the fact that he graded the BMC but not the 5D footage in some shots, etc.
Looks more like it was made for people who only want to reaffirm what they already know.
I mean is there anyone out there who didn't already know that 12 bit capture is going to offer more room for grading than an 8bit image?
So who was behaving like a fanboy in that situation?
And by the way how about a comparison of the noise in the shadows at 1600 or 3200 iso?
 
Last edited:
Not to mention that the MKIII footage wasn't post sharpened which is a necessary process to bring out the detail. The test was skewed in favour of the BMCC, if you can't see that then you're not looking close enough. The BMCC is great and in most circumstances produces a better image than the MKIII but certainly not in all circumstances. Somebody expressed the view that that video is just an ad for the BMCC, I have to agree with that statement. An honest test shows the pros and cons of each camera.
 
yoclay said:
And by the way how about a comparison of the noise in the shadows at 1600 or 3200 iso?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm going into this with my regret cap on, but...

TO make a fair comparison, wouldn't you have to do post noise reduction on the Blackmagic footage? I mean, 5DMKIII does noise reduction even if you've got it set to none.

Similar to how people are saying it's unfair that he didn't sharpen the 5D footage.

Just curious.

Like Squig, though, I agree that sharpening is necessary for the MKIII, and I would've liked to see that chart with contrast and sharpening added.
 
The noise on all the BMCC footage I've seen so far is quite filmic so not an issue for me. Vincent Laforet's review pretty much mirrors my view on the BMCC. I love the image, I just can't justify the cost right now but it's certainly a worthy contender for the feature with some vintage Cooke or Leica-m glass.

But c'mon if the MKIII really looked as bad as it does in that test do you think any of us would shoot with it?
 
squig said:
But c'mon if the MKIII really looked as bad as it does in that test do you think any of us would shoot with it?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I do. lol

Not a slight against anyone, but that's how the MKIII (and honestly almost every other DSLR) looks to me at all times unless it's a close-up. Looks great there. GH2 is weak as heck on wides, as well. People saying "Now let's see GH3 vs Blackmagic."

THat's really funny.

Edit: I will say that video that Andrew posted a long time ago with the MKIII looked pretty nice, until you looked at it too much (of course). Haven't seen much inspiring since.

Edit 2: https://vimeo.com/39953108 - That video
 
Hehe.

Phillip Bloom shot some nice wide landscape stuff with it. I don't really shoot that kind of stuff, mostly gritty urban drama, sci-fi, lots of night stuff, lots of guerilla. I wouldn't get away with it with a BMCC. I'm hoping the Magic Lantern lads can get uncompressed to CF card operational, that should sharpen things up a bit.

Are you still getting the BMCC?

The A99 with a VAF could be a viable option. 1080p 60p would be very nice.
 
squig said:
Hehe.

Phillip Bloom shot some nice wide landscape stuff with it. --

Are you still getting the BMCC?

The A99 with a VAF could be a viable option. 1080p 60p would be very nice.
Click to expand...

Me either. I'm still hair and beauty for bread and butter. I've still got one on order, was looking at A99 but seeing the raw footage turned me off. RAW GH3 stuff looks promising (I saw a bunch of stuff in various locations that has not been viewed by the public), needs hack though.

Guess you can't have it all unless you're willing to pay for it. There're a lot of things that are't there with Blackmagic that I'd like to have again, but... yeah.

If I had money, C300 would probably be the camera I owned (If I didn't have to pay that money back fast.) And Blackmagic as my second lil' camera.
 
I'd prefer the 1DC. Hopefully the 1DX will get a 4k hack. It's not so much the 4k I want as much as the 422 mjpeg and 1080p 60p.

I'm keeping an eye on the GH3 again for the 1080p 60p. Has anyone determined for certain that it's uncompressed 422 out?

The D800 with a VAF and a ninja is another option but sadly no 1080p 60p.

You getting an EF or M43 mount?
 
Though it is a bit smaller than M4/3, the BMC sensor is too large to use most 16mm or S16mm glass. It won't cover without vignetting. The M4/3 mount version is dumb, no electronic lens control for M4/3 lenses. Practical lens selection is a problem with the BMC.
It is capable of shooting some very nice high quality images though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top