5d or GH3

Just to throw another monkey wrench into this sensor size thing for video purposes...2 of the most "resolute"(not talking DR or the best image here) cameras I have personally ever seen footage of have small sensors and fixed lenses. The XF300 is a beast in that respect and so is the tiny chip AC90. For video, the whole system, from processing to sensor design makes a lot of difference in pure resolution. If anyone has the time, look at the Alan Roberts test for the XF300...the thing gets incredible numbers for resolving detail.
 
TheDingo said:
The DxOMark tests are essentially useless when comparing lens performance because they are not factoring the difference in the Mpx of the camera body.

If I was going to accept this logic, well here's another wonderful test of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L ISII USM lens...

DxOMark : Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens versus Olympus 75mm f/1.8 Lens

Can you see the problem with testing lenses this way?
Click to expand...

No, I don't have a problem with it at all. It shows me that the Canon 70-200 is an exemplary lens, and is able to max out the resolution of a 8 year old 1.6 crop sensor. Don't you think it is remarkable how close the 8 year old Canon crop sensor with a zoom is to the best current m4/3 with a prime?

I bet you haven't looked at the 8 year old FF 5D vs. m4/3 have you? http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/408/(lens2)/898/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/176/(brand2)/Olympus/(camera2)/677
 
GrahamH said:
Maybe for stills, but for video the image is being crunched down to 1080x1920 pixels or whatever. That introduces additional considerations, making what you are saying here not necessarily so.
Click to expand...

I was very clear that I was talking about raw still images and how that will also impact raw video images. What is your point?
 
Celluloid Dream said:
I was very clear that I was talking about raw still images and how that will also impact raw video images. What is your point?
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about still images? That's not what the OP was asking about.

OP: "I am curious on a few items regarding DSLR and mirrorless video making."
 
GrahamH said:
Why are you talking about still images? That's not what the OP was asking about.

OP: "I am curious on a few items regarding DSLR and mirrorless video making."
Click to expand...

Back in post #151 of this thread, http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?307189-5d-or-GH3&p=1986319670&viewfull=1#post1986319670

a point was made about larger sensors making sharper images. Then that was debated some, and I came in the thread to state that it is true. I brought up still images because it is easier to see the difference and we have measurement data.

Sensor size is very important to DSLR and mirrorless video making. Otherwise why not just stick with the old 1/3 and 2/3 tiny sensor video cameras. I don't see how making the point that the "larger the sensor the better" is not relevant to the conversation. Potential resolving power is just one factor to keep in mind.

Right now with standard DSLR video you can't see the full potential of FF. I think we all know that raw video is coming to more and more cameras in the near future, and we also know that higher resolution 2.5k, 4k, even 6k is the future for video. When you get to 4k and 6k, you can bet your ass you will be able to see the sharpness advantage of larger sensors.

It's something to keep in mind, especially as we get into raw and higher resolutions. If you would rather not know I understand.
 
Celluloid Dream said:
Back in post #151 of this thread, http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?307189-5d-or-GH3&p=1986319670&viewfull=1#post1986319670

a point was made about larger sensors making sharper images. Then that was debated some, and I came in the thread to state that it is true. I brought up still images because it is easier to see the difference and we have measurement data.

Sensor size is very important to DSLR and mirrorless video making. Otherwise why not just stick with the old 1/3 and 2/3 tiny sensor video cameras. I don't see how making the point that the "larger the sensor the better" is not relevant to the conversation. Potential resolving power is just one factor to keep in mind.

Right now with standard DSLR video you can't see the full potential of FF. I think we all know that raw video is coming to more and more cameras in the near future, and we also know that higher resolution 2.5k, 4k, even 6k is the future for video. When you get to 4k and 6k, you can bet your ass you will be able to see the sharpness advantage of larger sensors.

It's something to keep in mind, especially as we get into raw and higher resolutions. If you would rather not know I understand.
Click to expand...

MFT Sensor is larger than 16mm which is very much larger than 1/3 and 2/3 chips. At the end of the day this thread has a lot of Fud in it. GH3 is an excellent camera and it is considered definitely in the large sensor family, heck the new Pocket camera from Black Magic is 16mm size I believe and would still prefer that camera over the FF of the 5d.
 
Yeah, I agree...that the sensor size really has nothing to do with sharpness in video practically speaking. Each camera as a system determines that. All those tiny sensor AVCHD cameras - resolve way more in video than any DSLR. The reason people prefer the larger sensors is better DR, better low light, and more control over dof. There are sharp large sensor cams and there are sharp small sensor cams. The evidence is on numerous technical reviews of cameras with all manner of sensor sizes.
 
Celluloid Dream said:
Back in post #151 of this thread, http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?307189-5d-or-GH3&p=1986319670&viewfull=1#post1986319670

a point was made about larger sensors making sharper images. Then that was debated some, and I came in the thread to state that it is true. I brought up still images because it is easier to see the difference and we have measurement data.

Sensor size is very important to DSLR and mirrorless video making. Otherwise why not just stick with the old 1/3 and 2/3 tiny sensor video cameras. I don't see how making the point that the "larger the sensor the better" is not relevant to the conversation. Potential resolving power is just one factor to keep in mind.

Right now with standard DSLR video you can't see the full potential of FF. I think we all know that raw video is coming to more and more cameras in the near future, and we also know that higher resolution 2.5k, 4k, even 6k is the future for video. When you get to 4k and 6k, you can bet your ass you will be able to see the sharpness advantage of larger sensors.

It's something to keep in mind, especially as we get into raw and higher resolutions. If you would rather not know I understand.
Click to expand...

Your knocking MFT (and the GH3) because the smaller sensor isn't sharp enough compared to Full Frame? Are you for real?

Smaller/bigger sensor aside, the OP is comparing the 5D and the GH3. Yes, in the future we might get sharper 6k full frame sensors like you say but what has this got to do with the 5D and GH3 now?

Unless you are happy to shoot with the newly released RAW hack and deal with it's workflow then there is no question that the GH3 is a hell of a lot sharper than the 5D.
 
Honestly, I know that I am a noob with all this...and I may not have the clarity to explain what I want out of a DSLR/Mirroless...but yes I want to take amazing stills on top of amazing video for under $3k for a body :)..hahah so that leaves me with many options...two of which seem to dominate...5D3 with Raw and GH3 with the potential for a future hack ... the GH3 just got a Metabones.

the raw files look sick but still aren't as sharp as gh3...but the colors are amazing...if I could get canon raw colors on gh3 i'd do it....still up in the air
 
TheDingo said:
Here's another example of this faulty DxOMark testing procedure, where a cheap Nikon 85mm f/1.8 lens beats the pants off the uber expensive Canon 85mm f/1.2 L lens.

DxOMark : Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens versus Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Lens
Click to expand...

It's widely accepted (I've had both lenses and mow only have the 85mm 1.8) that the Canon 85mm 1.8 is actually a bit sharper than the 1.2, it has just as good bokeh, with the exception that the 1.2 can open a bit wider.
Because the 1.2 is much more expensive means nothing except for build and the 2/3 stop difference. The 1.8 performs as well or better than the 1.2 at all relevant f stops and it's much smaller and lighter making a much better lens for most uses.

And for the record, we shoot with a couple of 5Ds and Gh3s. And while I really like the FF aesthetic for a lot of things and the Canon colorimetry, the GH3 has considerably more resolution. We put them side by side when the gH3 first came out and compared them with the Zuiko 45mm vs the Canon 85mm (90mm vs 85MM) and the Lumix 40mm vs the Sigma 50mm 1.4 (IMO the sharpest 50mm out there). The 5Ds still look great, but the GH3 is simply a much more detailed image and with a bit better DR.

Personally I think the GH3 is the single smartest buy for small HD cameras (we use them for a lot of remote actions stuff). You can configure the buttons to make it a very ergonomic system, articulating OLED monitor, a lightweight Hoodman loupe and a Spider PVC shoulder rig and these things can shoot right alongside any C-100 in terms of ease of use and image quality, with great 60p slomo.
 
Last edited:
jimagine said:
the Canon 85mm 1.8 is actually a bit sharper than the 1.2, it has just as good bokeh
Click to expand...

No disagreement from me on this.

What I am questioning is the methods that DxOMark uses to test lenses, which always appears to be more of a camera sensor test, as you can get wildly different results depending on the camera body you choose for this "lens" test.
 
Yeah, I'm actually amazed at how many lenses fall in the lower third of their scale that are, in fact, some of the sharpest lenses you can shoot.
I don't get their methodology, but I know is doesn't square with actual results on the ground.

FWIW, the 85mm 1.8 is one of the "must have" lenses because of IQ, size and bokeh - the cost makes it one of the best bangs for buck in lenses.
When we got the GH3s for slomo, I'd never touched an MFT lens, but I've got to say, the 45mm Zuiko is right there with the Canon in IQ and bokeh and cost and can actually fit in a pocket.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
two of which seem to dominate...5D3 with Raw and GH3 with the potential for a future hack
Click to expand...

While this new Canon RAW hack looks interesting, I don't think I could ever adjust to the work-flow involved to use it...

- 55 seconds is the longest recording time ( this might change if the ML guys can figure out a way to span in RAW mode )
- 260 GB / hour for memory storage space, which equates to about $700 using low cost 128 GB CF memory cards
- 1 fps playback speed of the RAW footage on a decent computer until it has been transcoded. ( transcoding takes a VERY long time )

So working in the field you would need a lot of cards to work with and a lot of storage space for RAW footage, and you likely wouldn't be able to watch your footage to confirm a shot until it had been transcoded ( i.e. the next day )

...I expect that working with a $995 Blackmagic Pocket Cine camera will be more like worthing with a GH3 camera, where the storage requirements will be a lot lower, where I can confirm any shot in camera, where I can immediately start working with the files shot using any standard NLE. ( i.e. AVID, FCPX, Premiere, Vegas Pro )

I also expect to see a custom Blackmagic Pocket Cine camera "Speed Booster" adapter that will have a lower magnification factor than the Micro 4/3 version, which will compensate for the smaller camera sensor and give a little more speed boost. ( of course this will depend on how well the BMPCC sells, but I expect it's going to be one of the most popular cine cameras around when priced at $995 )
 
Yeah, I think the BMPC will be a perfect compliment to the GH3. It's why I've stopped looking at other cameras right now. I'm like Dusty L, with tons invested in EOS glass for different camera bodies.
Now that I've invested in MFT lenses, the match with the BMPC could be pretty ideal for a small setup.
I'll bet the the IQ/resolution will be similar with a great "organic" look from the BMPC and with the GH3 giving a wider FOV withe the same lenses and slo motion.
The GH3 is an incredibly easy tool to shoot with...the easiest ever from my perspective and I've produced with a lot of high end vid cameras over the years.
It's card size, battery life, choice of codecs, OLED screens and general ergonomics make it the only real hybrid DSLR in that it's much more a camera to film with than to photograph with IMO.
Again, for about $200 bucks each, I setup a pair of them with fitted loupes and feather light but incredibly stable PVC Ppider rigs.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
There is so much to like about both of these cameras...even without the raw files or the metabooster... check these...what do you think:

GH

https://vimeo.com/24561491
https://vimeo.com/66688723

5D

https://vimeo.com/groups/5dmark/videos/66575609
https://vimeo.com/groups/5dmark/videos/66680965

IT is literally a tough decision! I don't want buyers remorse :(.

For:

-Interviews
-Documentaries
-Vacation (vivid looks)
Click to expand...

Honestly, you can't go wrong with either - although if interviews are your priority, I'd say the GH3 just for convenience sake (unlimited recording time, etc).

Don't obsess over quality. 99% of your audience couldn't tell the difference between something shot on a GoPro and on a RED, and they ultimately don't care. The visual story is what separate a good film from the rest.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
There is so much to like about both of these cameras...even without the raw files or the metabooster... check these...what do you think:

GH

https://vimeo.com/24561491
https://vimeo.com/66688723

5D

https://vimeo.com/groups/5dmark/videos/66575609
https://vimeo.com/groups/5dmark/videos/66680965

IT is literally a tough decision! I don't want buyers remorse :(.

For:

-Interviews
-Documentaries
-Vacation (vivid looks)
Click to expand...

To lessen the "cost of buyer's remorse" you might also want consider the resale value of your investment, the canon 5Ds hold a better value, than the GH cameras. Also, if you travel around the world, service centers and accessories for the 5D are readily available.

I do corporate and commercials and also do shorts on the side, record time is not an issue with the 5Ds, with magic lantern they automatically restart recording when it reaches the 4gig (approx 12min) limit.
 
If you're using for vacations, documentaries and interviews, I'd say GH3 just for the vacation part alone. I had a GH1...took it on vacation, seamlessly went from video to photos to back again...with the EVF and flip out screen, fast AF and a 14-140 (or similar stepless lens) it's damn near like having a video camera. The 5D will be a harder beast to contain for just grabbing shots on the go. Plus you'd need to get a VF, also, the AF...horrible on a DSLR compared to the GH series.

Docs and interviews....either would be just as viable. In just my opinion, the video on the GH3 is better for some scenarios than a stock 5DMK3 (no hack) I think for the uses you listed the hack would be overkill though. The photos from an MK3 are stellar, and the low light video is better, video DR is better.
Another thing to consider is the built in time lapse on the GH3. That can be a very nice feature right at your finger tips for any project.

Yet another thing to consider is overall system....m 4/3 vs full frame. Which lenses do you want to invest in, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top