5D MrkIII vs BMCC

gonzo_entertainment said:
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.
Click to expand...

For the price BMCC is incredibly good at one thing, but looks like only one thing: capturing an image in the raw format of 1's and 0's. Mark III is superior on most everything else.
 
A video I worked on recently that had Red Scarlet and 5D Mark III mixed together. Yes the BMCC is better but the 5D Mark III is not a completely crap camera by any means.
 
No doubt the BMC is handling highlights better, and has more DR. For a lot of controlled shoots it will be a superior camera.

But I have rarely seen 5DMK3 footage as poor as that; the test seems a bit skewed really.

This is a great handheld video by a guy on a holiday, and blows the works done in that controlled test out of the water (using 5DMK3):

 
Kholi said:
GH2 is weak as heck on wides, as well.
Click to expand...

...I think you're exaggerating a bit here. Here's a short list off the top of my head of Micro 4/3 lenses that can shoot wide:

PRIMES

7.5mm f/3.5 fish-eye, 8mm f/3.5 fish-eye
12mm f/1.6, 12mm f/2.0
14mm f/2.0, 14mm f/2.5
15mm f/4.5 shift lens
15mm f/8.0
17.5mm f/0.95, 17mm f/1.8, 17mm f/2.8
19mm f/2.8
20mm f/1.7

ZOOMS

7-14mm f/4.0
8-16mm f/4.5-5.6
12-35mm f/2.8
12-50mm f3.5-6.3
14-42mm f/3.5-5.6, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6
14-140mm f/4.0-5.8, 14-150mm f/4-5.6


- Compared to APS-C cameras, the GH2 has far more wide prime lenses

- Compared to 35mm Full-Frame cameras, the GH2 is slowly catching up
 
TheDingo said:
...I think you're exaggerating a bit here. Here's a short list off the top of my head of Micro 4/3 lenses that can shoot wide:
Click to expand...

Nah, you just read that the wrong way. Weak on wides as in Image Quality: It looks a little better than Canon DSLrs but still not all that pretty.

=T I still shoot with my GH2 plenty
 
simonpwood said:
No doubt the BMC is handling highlights better, and has more DR. For a lot of controlled shoots it will be a superior camera.
Click to expand...

This statement is kind of strange. It's like saying "well the Alexa is better but only for controlled shots".

Unless I'm reading that wrong, a better image is a better image no matter what you do. More Dr, More Detail, Greater Fidelity, etc will always beat out the lesser of each. I guess you could point out the difference in sensor size and the need for hyper wides, though.

Now, of course, if one doesn't think that it's a better image then that's a different story.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't have commented here! Carry on!
 
Kholi said:
Weak on wides as in Image Quality: It looks a little better than Canon DSLrs but still not all that pretty
Click to expand...

...Hmmm, I guess we'll have to disagree here.

Video with the GH2 is inherently contrasty, which makes it a pain to shoot anything with a wide luminance range, but given the right lighting and an appropriate subject, I've seen absolutely stunning video shot by the GH2.

I definitely agree with you when it comes to still photos, but I'm hoping the GH3 matches the OM-D EM-5 camera for still photo work.
 
Kholi said:
This statement is kind of strange. It's like saying "well the Alexa is better but only for controlled shots".

Unless I'm reading that wrong, a better image is a better image no matter what you do. More Dr, More Detail, Greater Fidelity, etc will always beat out the lesser of each. I guess you could point out the difference in sensor size and the need for hyper wides, though.

Now, of course, if one doesn't think that it's a better image then that's a different story.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't have commented here! Carry on!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I worded it badly I guess. Yeah, the BMC will certainly produce a better image under all conditions.

However, there would be circumstances when you might find that the 5DMK3 might be better choice; probably in less controlled situations (where you have no control of light), where you are filming discretely in public, where you will need to be filming for long periods (lots of media and batteries in your pockets), where basic weather sealing might be an issue etc. Or where a fast turn around in post is needed. Most of those situations, by default, seem to be examples where you might be in varying conditions beyond your control.

I mainly film documentary style work, and often in outdoor conditions in Africa where the camera is subject to all sorts of weather and dust, and where the authorities often take interest in anything professional looking (so its often better to be discrete).

I'm in the market for a new camera and I took a long hard look at the BMC - and I love the look of the image coming out of it. But in the end I realized it was too much camera for me; and the main factor in deciding this was the often uncontrolled nature of the films I am involved with I guess.
 
simonpwood said:
No doubt the BMC is handling highlights better, and has more DR. For a lot of controlled shoots it will be a superior camera.

But I have rarely seen 5DMK3 footage as poor as that; the test seems a bit skewed really.

This is a great handheld video by a guy on a holiday, and blows the works done in that controlled test out of the water (using 5DMK3):

Click to expand...


Footage looks great!

I know the older Canon dslr had a lot of aliasing and moire but the markIII seems really improved.
 
Gary Huff said:
Which 12mm prime are your referring to? The SLR Magic Hyperprime 12mm f/1.6? You're right, way cheaper than the 28mm L series Canon.
Click to expand...

I have 3 X 28mm. The most expensive one was $45. There are no "inexpensive hidden gem" ultra wides. They're expensive lenses, always have been, vintage or modern. That hyper prime is m4/3 glass (nope, not interested, too limiting going forward) is $800 and isn't even out yet is it.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
I have 3 X 28mm. The most expensive one was $45
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you are referring to old used lenses that were not designed for digital cameras.

The M4/3 format is current ( there are no ancient used M4/3 lenses ), but when you compare the price of a new 14mm f/2.5 lens ( $167 new on eBay ) to a new Canon 28mm f/2.8 lens ( about $400 on eBay ), that 14mm lens looks like an amazing deal.
 
I actually don't own any modern glass. Mine is all minimum of about 40 years old. Sold my couple of EF mount modern Canon's (like the 50mm 1.4) about 6 months after I bought the camera. I won't own a lens that crops on a FF sensor. Won't buy one.

One of the advantages of "DSLR" is cost. If I have to buy/rent expensive lenses to get the image I want it becomes less attractive.

I'm not the one being defensive. We are just pointing out, yes lots of good stuff here with the BMC, very nice step in a very good direction, but less than S16 sensor size.... We aren't there yet. It has some downsides to go with all the good stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top