Here's a production photo that shows Shane's GH2 on a RedRock Micro rig with a Novoflex Nikon adapter and a low-cost Samyang 85mm f/1.4 lens attached.
Production photo from Upstream Color
5d or GH3
- Thread starter JasonMillard81
- Start date
Here's a production photo that shows Shane's GH2 on a RedRock Micro rig with a Novoflex Nikon adapter and a low-cost Samyang 85mm f/1.4 lens attached.
Production photo from Upstream Color
GH3 is capable of a cinematic look. It's all about composition and grading.
https://vimeo.com/59543338
Extremely thin shallow depth of field is overrated.
This looks cinematic to me
https://vimeo.com/59543338
Extremely thin shallow depth of field is overrated.
This looks cinematic to me
squig
Veteran
https://vimeo.com/63936967 GH3
https://vimeo.com/63379883 D5200
https://vimeo.com/62247353 5DMK3
Whether or not your work looks "cinematic" is dependent on you, not the camera. As owner/operator of all 3 if I had to choose 1 camera and only had say $1500 to spend, I'd get a Nikon D7100 (same sensor as D5200, more features). The Nikon has more dynamic range than the GH3 and better resolution than the 5D. If you really want the Canon look you should consider a 7D or a 60D with a VAF anti-aliasing filter.
Steve_Karl
Well-known member
I know it's not possible to do, but I'd have loved to see the GH3
( in smooth mode with a -2 on all but noise reduction ... i.e. if the GH3 has the same setup options as the GH2 )
shooting the Buddha scene and the D5200 shooting the girl singing in the room, and no grading on either.
JasonMillard81
Active member
Thanks for some great insight and frankly, some funny commentary.
Before we go on... can we establish experiences responses to my original questions?
1. Can the GH3 be graded or given certain settings/hacks to get that "cinematic" movie quality feel that you get with the Canon DSLR full frame cameras, but with the sharpness?
2. Can the GH3 perform excellent in low light with certain lenses and programs (NeatVideo)
3. Can the 5DMKIII be brought to be as sharp as the GH3?
More needs to be done to the GH3 to get it as "professional" looking as the 5D 3 in my opinion (based purely on Vimeo & YouTube but if it could work it would be the BEST option due to m43 and price...
PS although that Cinematic Clash movie you sent me was cool...In no way does that strike me as cinematic...i'm a HUGE film fan and that looks like a Camcorder shot it. Please tell me why? I'm watching the new Constitution documentary on PBS and it looks like the "feel" of a Canon but with the sharpness of the GH3. Not sure what camera that is.
Before we go on... can we establish experiences responses to my original questions?
1. Can the GH3 be graded or given certain settings/hacks to get that "cinematic" movie quality feel that you get with the Canon DSLR full frame cameras, but with the sharpness?
2. Can the GH3 perform excellent in low light with certain lenses and programs (NeatVideo)
3. Can the 5DMKIII be brought to be as sharp as the GH3?
More needs to be done to the GH3 to get it as "professional" looking as the 5D 3 in my opinion (based purely on Vimeo & YouTube
but if it could work it would be the BEST option due to m43 and price...PS although that Cinematic Clash movie you sent me was cool...In no way does that strike me as cinematic...i'm a HUGE film fan and that looks like a Camcorder shot it. Please tell me why? I'm watching the new Constitution documentary on PBS and it looks like the "feel" of a Canon but with the sharpness of the GH3. Not sure what camera that is.
Last edited:
Yes. I posted two images or an original highly compressed web screen print then graded for a much more cinematic look. You can do much even more with the original file. I think this shows that if you take the time in post you can get cinematic looks. The image tends to start off with WAY too much contrast, crushed blacks and blown highlights. My grade, I believe, takes on much more of a film like quality by comparison. On page 2 if you missed them. And if you want shallower depth of field get some really fast lenses.
Yes, it can perform great in low light with fast lenses such as the F0.95 lenses, but won't quite match the Mark III. Neat Video is a life saver. Also, Speedbooster is coming out soon for Micro Four Thirds mount. This will allow you to use Canon EF lenses and make it around Super 35mm crop, I believe, as well as one stop faster. So F2.0 lenses become F1.4 and F1.4 lenses become F1.0. So, you get one stop better in low light, wider field of view and shallower DOF. May be worth waiting for.
No, but it can be improved with sharpening.
Hard to base on a Vimeo video. One video could have a professional lighting crew and such, and another may not. Color grading and lighting are very important. If you want a true cinema quality you need a BlackMagic Cinema camera for $2,995 or BlackMagic Pocket Cinema for $995.More needs to be done to the GH3 to get it as "professional" looking as the 5D 3 in my opinion (based purely on Vimeo & YouTube
Last edited:
squig
Veteran
1. I think I just demonstrated it can.
2. No it's not excellent in low light, if you try to underexpose it will get real ugly whereas the 5D will hold up pretty well, but you really shouldn't be underexposing in the first place. Fast lenses and denoising will help but the sensor is no match for the 5D in the dark. LED camera lights are very cheap these days.
3. No, even with post sharpening applied the 5D is much softer than the GH3.
The doco you watched was most likely shot on a C300.
Steve_Karl
Well-known member
This might be worth a look:
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/461/gh2-film-modes/p1
I suspect the GH3 works in a similar way?
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/461/gh2-film-modes/p1
I suspect the GH3 works in a similar way?
JasonMillard81
Active member
Great points by all. I really do appreciate them!
1. I am curious about metabones...how does it make the m43 system produce full-frame images? I like the idea of reducing f-stops and allowing my light in.
2. I overuse the word "filmic" or "cinematic" like many tools on the web so forgive me...what I should say is: I've showed probably 8 videos of 5D and GH3/2 to friends by amateurs (mostly travel videos etc) and they all picked the Canon...just said It looked "better" "cooler" maybe sharper isn't the most important for personal use? I'd like to shoot mini-documentaries and footage on travel/vacation etc.
3. If many documentaries are shot on the C300 does that mean that the "look" is most closely reproduced by 5D's and no GH3s? For that type of look?
@Steve not sure what those posts were about?
1. I am curious about metabones...how does it make the m43 system produce full-frame images? I like the idea of reducing f-stops and allowing my light in.
2. I overuse the word "filmic" or "cinematic" like many tools on the web so forgive me...what I should say is: I've showed probably 8 videos of 5D and GH3/2 to friends by amateurs (mostly travel videos etc) and they all picked the Canon...just said It looked "better" "cooler" maybe sharper isn't the most important for personal use? I'd like to shoot mini-documentaries and footage on travel/vacation etc.
3. If many documentaries are shot on the C300 does that mean that the "look" is most closely reproduced by 5D's and no GH3s? For that type of look?
@Steve not sure what those posts were about?
Straight out of the box with NO adjustments, I would guess that the Canon 5D is going to produce an image that looks more like the Canon C100 or C300 straight out of the box, than any other brand of camera. We are talking about DEFAULT camera settings, and not any special feature of the camera. Most other cameras can be tuned to produce a similar look, it just takes somebody with a brain who knows what they are doing to make them match.
I own both the GH3 and 5D Mark III and IMO I favor the Mark III. To me the GH3 has some touch of in camera sharpening even at -3 that produces some weird skin tones that I can't stand. I know you're always supposed to light your scenes but for those times you cant its always nice to be able to go to 3200 without any worry either. This really opened my eyes to the power of the Mark III in the right hands.
Lie about what? The skin tones and colors being far superior on the 5d3? Or the low light? Or the vast superior lens choices? Sorry, but I want my 35mm lens to be 35, not 70mm. What, no focus peaking on the GH3? I can with Magic Lantern. Don't even get started on quality of stills. I love how every shot was magically zoomed in for the GH3. Sorry you don't have any fast/wide lens choices for m/43rds. Only the slow 7-14 F/4 (aka DOF like F/8 on FF and still only 14-28mm). Even the Nokton 17mm is still an effective 35mm.
I wouldn't trot this video out as a great example of the GH3's superiority. Certainly @ 1:50 and 2:10 those shots look better on the Canon. Also, no people in any of these shots. Wonder why? Don't like unrealistic plastic-y faces?
This looks like very sharp camcorder footage from the GH3. If you like the deep DOF look, then this is for you. Sharpness isn't everything especially in video...
I wouldn't trot this video out as a great example of the GH3's superiority. Certainly @ 1:50 and 2:10 those shots look better on the Canon. Also, no people in any of these shots. Wonder why? Don't like unrealistic plastic-y faces?
This looks like very sharp camcorder footage from the GH3. If you like the deep DOF look, then this is for you. Sharpness isn't everything especially in video...
Last edited:
Looking at the original 500+ MB MOV file, the GH3 footage appears to have a noticeable magenta cast to almost all the shots, so without correction I would pick the 5D Mk3 for color in this video, but I know that it's a 5 second fix to remove this extra magenta.
Same goes with the contrast range of the GH3 footage, which looks too flat to my eye, so again without correction I would pick the 5D Mk3 for tonal range, but this can also be fixed in about 30 seconds using your editor's gamma tools.
Every frame of video I shoot always gets properly color corrected and gamma corrected, which makes a huge difference to the finished result, even without grading.
It's too bad that they didn't try and match the footage to each other, as I think the end result would be fairly close to each other in terms of color and sharpness.
Coming from a background of 25+ years in professional photography, the first thing I bought after my GH2 was a Sekonic C-500 color meter that I use for every shoot.
8-bit 4:2:0 video has a limited successful range for color correction, so I want to be sure that my original footage comes as close to color neutral as it can, so any correction I apply will be tiny and the full image quality will be retained in the finished work.
Last edited:
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
There's no question features and sharpness is better on the GH3 but if I look at the end result and the painless way to get there with a 5D3 I prefer the Canon everyday.
Word. I also really like the fact that when you turn off sharpening on the Canon, it's actually completely off. No halos. No artifacts. Smooth clean image. Easy to grade.
And isn't it strange how GH3 fans like to post only landscape stuff?
Steve_Karl
Well-known member
Sorry.
... probably over the top if you don't own a GH, but generally it's about the presets and fine tuning.
The ones called "Cinematic" "Nostalgic" "Smooth" etc.
... the color curves that are in those presets, and the adjustments,
+ or -2
of Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation, Noise Reduction
and what the long term users have discovered about choices that can seemingly maximize dynamic range.
Of course, it's subjective also.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
OP:
Both are capable cameras. Each has their strength and weakness. If you want a great stills cam and decent video with minimal work out of box then get the 5DIII. It sounds like you had your mind in that realm anyway and was searching for confirmation to spend the more money. The GH3 takes a little more thought but can yield results just as good. I am not a fan of the FF look. I find it too shallow for anything but narrative but that is my personal preference.
The real strength of the M4/3 system is size. I can carry around a GH3 and the FF equivelant of 24-70, 70-200 and a couple of fast primes in a small slingbag. Try that with a 5DIII.
If travel and vacation videos/pics aren't your priority then the bulkier full frame camera and larger more expensive lenses will probably yield better results at a much higher cost premium.
Make a list of what is most important to you. Each offers many advantages that the other can't match its just a question of what is more important to you.
I choose a GH3 as my home camera as it checked off a lot of boxes for me. I still use a 5DII for work and a C300 so its not like I hate Canon or are a fanboy. The GH3 just hit the spot for me.
If shooting video was my goal and cost wasn't a big deal (5DIII is 2x the price of GH3) I would just go a few grand more and get the C100. Great cam and with the $1000 off and 0% financing for 2 years it is now closer to ideal pricing for the features offered.
Both are capable cameras. Each has their strength and weakness. If you want a great stills cam and decent video with minimal work out of box then get the 5DIII. It sounds like you had your mind in that realm anyway and was searching for confirmation to spend the more money. The GH3 takes a little more thought but can yield results just as good. I am not a fan of the FF look. I find it too shallow for anything but narrative but that is my personal preference.
The real strength of the M4/3 system is size. I can carry around a GH3 and the FF equivelant of 24-70, 70-200 and a couple of fast primes in a small slingbag. Try that with a 5DIII.
If travel and vacation videos/pics aren't your priority then the bulkier full frame camera and larger more expensive lenses will probably yield better results at a much higher cost premium.
Make a list of what is most important to you. Each offers many advantages that the other can't match its just a question of what is more important to you.
I choose a GH3 as my home camera as it checked off a lot of boxes for me. I still use a 5DII for work and a C300 so its not like I hate Canon or are a fanboy. The GH3 just hit the spot for me.
If shooting video was my goal and cost wasn't a big deal (5DIII is 2x the price of GH3) I would just go a few grand more and get the C100. Great cam and with the $1000 off and 0% financing for 2 years it is now closer to ideal pricing for the features offered.
Lie about what? The skin tones and colors being far superior on the 5d3? Or the low light? Or the vast superior lens choices? Sorry, but I want my 35mm lens to be 35, not 70mm. What, no focus peaking on the GH3? I can with Magic Lantern. Don't even get started on quality of stills. I love how every shot was magically zoomed in for the GH3. Sorry you don't have any fast/wide lens choices for m/43rds. Only the slow 7-14 F/4 (aka DOF like F/8 on FF and still only 14-28mm). Even the Nokton 17mm is still an effective 35mm.
I wouldn't trot this video out as a great example of the GH3's superiority. Certainly @ 1:50 and 2:10 those shots look better on the Canon. Also, no people in any of these shots. Wonder why? Don't like unrealistic plastic-y faces?
This looks like very sharp camcorder footage from the GH3. If you like the deep DOF look, then this is for you. Sharpness isn't everything especially in video...
*Full Frame is not the standard for movie lenses, if anything S35 and 16mm are
* More lenses? You have no idea what you are talking about. Almost any lens can mount on the MFT mount.
Fast wide lenses? How about this at 1.4
http://www.adorama.com/SLR1216MFT.html
or this at f/2
http://www.adorama.com/IOM12M.html
Finally and I will end this here, this was shot on a GH2 (with the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 lens) by some great Dp's I know
* A camera is only a tool