5d or GH3

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...

You can see that both cameras can make great images. You can see that neither is a bad camera. The 5D and GH3 are pretty much the best DSLR's for video. Why would you get buyers remorse?
 
Last edited:
Great question.

Buying the gh3 I'd miss the color, ff, and low light hi ISO on the 5d with the option of raw

using the 5d3 I'd miss the natural iq, cheap price, mft mount and speedbooster and potential hack, and resolution
 
Hey, if you are shooting for fun, who cares. Either camera will only be limited by your talent and creativity. Seriously, it's not like you are curing cancer, it's just a camera, pick one and start having fun!

If this is a business purchase, pick the camera that will best serve your client base. Simple as that!
 
But David, if I were to make a documentary about the person who was trying to cure cancer and I didn't have the the optimum setup between the two cameras I would feel like I let the world down.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
But David, if I were to make a documentary about the person who was trying to cure cancer and I didn't have the the optimum setup between the two cameras I would feel like I let the world down.
Click to expand...

Either camera can do a doc like you described. The part that really matters is the person behind the camera. Get one of them and start learning your craft. The camera won't be the limitation or the reason for good or bad footage.

For most of your interviews your lighting kit and lens choices will make a bigger difference.
 
Last edited:
I showed 3-4 coworkers the videos above that I listed that shows the range of the 5D and GH3...interestingly enough, all picked the 5D. They said that the 5D "looks like film" and the gh3 "looks like video camera/documentary" Since i'm doing both i'm going to wait a few more days/weeks to make a choice. I appreciate all the feedback...i'd love to see a well made gh2/gh3 vs. 5d3 raw video comparison on human subjects and different focal lengths.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
I showed 3-4 coworkers the videos above that I listed that shows the range of the 5D and GH3...interestingly enough, all picked the 5D. They said that the 5D "looks like film" and the gh3 "looks like video camera/documentary" Since i'm doing both i'm going to wait a few more days/weeks to make a choice. I appreciate all the feedback...i'd love to see a well made gh2/gh3 vs. 5d3 raw video comparison on human subjects and different focal lengths.
Click to expand...

Showing people videos back to back that you didn't shoot won't accomplish anything. I've seen 5D stuff that looks pretty poor and GH stuff that looks great. Don't take offence but how do you know that you could achieve the same look as the 5D videos you linked to even if you had a 5D. There is a lot more behind the look of an image than the sensor used to capture it.

I bet If you showed your friends only the GH3 videos they would think they look great. People get sucked in by the shallow DOF when you compare them side by side. When people watch your work, they are not watching another version shot on another camera to compare it to.

There is no perfect camera otherwise everyone would buy the same thing and other camera manufacturers would be out of business. As I said, the GH3 and 5D are both great cameras. There is no terrible choice here.
 
TheDingo said:
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 )
Click to expand...

This post is 10 days old. In that time, the ML hack now allows for full card recording (exFAT) with the limit only being card space. A GB 1000x card I bought for $120 (Lexar UDMA 7) I can get just over 6 minutes straight 1920x1080 with audio. Also, you can now review "the shot" in cam with the latest builds. Just think what the next few months will bring...:)
 
sparky33 said:
Just think what the next few months will bring...:)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's impressive how fast they've come in such a short time. Kudos to the Magic Lantern team. ( I didn't know that playback is happening now, which is extremely handy )

I read about Cineform's new tool for digesting Canon RAW footage, which proves that many people are paying attention to this new RAW hack.
 
I'll bet those reading this thread that decided to opt for the 5d3 sure are happy with their decision with the 14bit raw now available. Focus peaking, zebras, histogram, class leading AF performance / low light / high ISO and now raw video.
Wish I could afford a 2nd 5d3...:)
 
sparky33 said:
I'll bet those reading this thread that decided to opt for the 5d3 sure are happy with their decision.... class leading AF performance.....:)
Click to expand...
For video the 5d3 focusing is not very good. My bet is almost everyone relies on manual focusing.
 
I've had both cameras (have the 5D3 now) and the Canon is my favorite camera ever - both for stills and video (raw).

The only things the GH3 had that I miss are nice focusing with manual lenses via the EVF focus peaking and native WiFi ability (I'm using the Camranger now to do the with the 5D3).

No contest though. The 5D is a much better camera in every way.
 
I have both, with good lenses, GH3 to me looks a bit cleaner, with better latitude, iso above 1250 mk3 is winner.. I like D800e best among DSLRs, if shooting AVCHD.
for puctures, Nikon works better to me..
 
Jason, you are overthinking this whole thing. You can sell the camera if you don't like it and buy the other one. You would have been shooting lots of great stuff by now. But, don't buy either. Buy the C100. I own the 5DMkiii, love it, but the C100 crushes it for most video projects. It's the best of both worlds. GH3 is wonderful too. But neither of them give you the video controls of the C100 (or 300 for that matter, or Sony FS line). Since I bought the C100, I don't use the 5D much anymore. I think the C100 is better for us video people than the 5D. Xlrs, waveform, peaking, profiles that really matter, etc etc. all without dealing with some third party hack (as much as I like it). It's the design we wanted from the 5D. If they only called it the C5Dmkiii. If I had to buy only one camera, it would be this one. But again, it's all about what you shoot. If you shoot theatrical, or need slo-mo, this is not likely what you would choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top