New_Zealand
Veteran
Anyone on here has a 650d? And if so how good is that camera? Do you think it matches the 5d mkiii?
650d?
- Thread starter New_Zealand
- Start date
DPStewart
Veteran
So I looked it up. 650d is another name for T4i.
DP-REVIEW describes it as a "novice-oriented" camera.
The 5D is a Full Frame camera.
The 650d is a low-cost APS-C camera.
In Canon's line-up it is about 4 steps down from the 5D iii.
Can it make great videos if you know what you're doing? Absolutely.
Is it at the level of the 5D? No way.
This is a $500 camera body.
The 5D is a $2,500 camera body.
Expectations should be realistic.
DP-REVIEW describes it as a "novice-oriented" camera.
The 5D is a Full Frame camera.
The 650d is a low-cost APS-C camera.
In Canon's line-up it is about 4 steps down from the 5D iii.
Can it make great videos if you know what you're doing? Absolutely.
Is it at the level of the 5D? No way.
This is a $500 camera body.
The 5D is a $2,500 camera body.
Expectations should be realistic.
New_Zealand
Veteran
Thanks
charliemcdanger
Well-known member
I have worked extensively with the t4i and with the 5Dii. The sensor in the t4i is the same as the sensor in the 7D, which was good enough for "Black Swan" and is still a beast of a camera six years later. Further, the footage from the t4i was, for my purposes, indistinguishable from the 5Dii footage. If you are worried about the sensor, you shouldn't be.
Much of what is "targeted to the novice" is honestly stuff that will have no bearing on you as a filmmaker. Will a magnesium alloy body make your film look better than a plastic body? Higher burst rates for stills? Etc.
Full-frame versus APS-C is probably the biggest red herring there is, given that traditional cinema was shot on a size closer to APS-C. For all the caterwauling about low light, depth of field, noise, blah blah blah, there is one thing that will affect you on a practical level: Full-frame will change your lens selection. Big deal.
I will not claim the t4i is the same camera as the 5Diii. But I will say this: if you are asking the question, the 5Diii will not improve the quality of your work. And in the hands of an expert, a film made with a t4i could fool us all into thinking it was shot with a 5Diii. My opinion? Save your $$ on the body and get some kickass lenses.
p.s. one little gem of knowledge is that the t3i is almost identical, but with the interesting feature of digital crop. Of course at 10x crop, the resolution is terrible. But at 3x crop, there is no apparent loss of resolution--and it eliminates aliasing and moire as it's no longer skipping pixels. Triples your apparent focal length, and doubles the utility of every lens in your bag. It's a feature so powerful that it's a damn shame--if unsurprising--that Canon hasn't offered it in subsequent models.
Much of what is "targeted to the novice" is honestly stuff that will have no bearing on you as a filmmaker. Will a magnesium alloy body make your film look better than a plastic body? Higher burst rates for stills? Etc.
Full-frame versus APS-C is probably the biggest red herring there is, given that traditional cinema was shot on a size closer to APS-C. For all the caterwauling about low light, depth of field, noise, blah blah blah, there is one thing that will affect you on a practical level: Full-frame will change your lens selection. Big deal.
I will not claim the t4i is the same camera as the 5Diii. But I will say this: if you are asking the question, the 5Diii will not improve the quality of your work. And in the hands of an expert, a film made with a t4i could fool us all into thinking it was shot with a 5Diii. My opinion? Save your $$ on the body and get some kickass lenses.
p.s. one little gem of knowledge is that the t3i is almost identical, but with the interesting feature of digital crop. Of course at 10x crop, the resolution is terrible. But at 3x crop, there is no apparent loss of resolution--and it eliminates aliasing and moire as it's no longer skipping pixels. Triples your apparent focal length, and doubles the utility of every lens in your bag. It's a feature so powerful that it's a damn shame--if unsurprising--that Canon hasn't offered it in subsequent models.
Last edited:
In low light it won't be that different. Similar sharpness, a bit more skew, much noisier past 800 ISO, and you get aliasing nasties, whereas with the Mark III you won't.
Rumor has it that the new t6i/t6s have much sharper video than the Mark III and all other Canon dSLRs before... but still worse low light and some aliasing.
I plan to replace my Mark III with an SL2. The Mark III is BRILLIANT for stills, however.
Rumor has it that the new t6i/t6s have much sharper video than the Mark III and all other Canon dSLRs before... but still worse low light and some aliasing.
I plan to replace my Mark III with an SL2. The Mark III is BRILLIANT for stills, however.