6D Vs. 5D Mark III - Film Student

Y

Yfeatures

New member
Hey guys,
What is the main difference between the 6D and the 5D Mark III other than the HUGE price difference. I am a film student at USC and am looking to purchase one of these cameras. I am a photographer and a cinematographer with a higher emphasis in cinematography. I see no difference that would affect quality of the video between the two cameras other than the underdeveloped ML firmware. Does anyone see a difference besides this? Am I underestimating the power of ML? Is there anything I'm missing? Thanks!!
 
It's basically the same image with fewer features than the 5DIII.

The 6D does show a little more moire and aliasing than the 5DIII though. But if your shot doesn't have lots of fine brick walls or clothing with patterns that are known to produce moire - then it's pretty darn close.

The one big functional difference is that the 5DIII can do RAW with the Magic Lantern hack. The 6D can kinda do it - but at lower resolution and only for a shorter time. Also the 5DIII has a CFast card slot in addition to the SD card slot - that is what allows it to reliably shoot RAW video. But again, all that adds expense.

I got a 6D just to use for low light shoots and it's been great. I like it a lot.
 
The aliasing/moire is important, to me at least. YMMV.

In any case, unless you're going to shoot RAW video (which is very heavy in terms of workflow), there are better options outside Canon right now. If you want a FF video DSLR, check the D750/D810 and the a7S. If you don't need it to be FF, also check the NX1 and, for a cheap option with awesome image quality (though with some aliasing/moire and with a small sensor), the BM pocket.
 
Don't get 6D for video, horrible aliasing/moire there.

Get a Nikon D750, a better/newer video camera than the 5D with a better image.
 
To be clear about Magic Lantern - it's HUGE.
Like ENORMOUS.

The RAW video from the 5DIII using Magic Lantern is better than ANY DSLR hands down. Period. No DSLR can touch it, but then no other DSLR can record RAW video.
But it adds a big speedbump into your production.
First - you have to use CFast cards to record it and those are very expensive compared to SD cards.
Second - RAW video must first be converted to the ProRes or DNxHD formats before you can edit it in an editing program. This step isn't really hard, it just takes a long time. You need to have a pretty new and powerful computer for it not to take forever.

If you don't mind dealing with the time and expense of that extra step then the 5DIII wins the whole game. Plus it's arguably still one of the best still cameras at the price point and obviously works natively with all Canon lenses - like the awesome L-series.

The 6D can run Magic Lantern and this gives you clean HDMI output for bypassing the compression using external recorders as well as other features, but RAW recording is limited to lower resolutions and shorter times - like roughly 1600X800 instead of 1920x1080. And you must use Sandisk Extreme Pro SD cards or you get dropped frames. However, I searched "Canon 6D RAW" on Vimeo and saw tons of videos that looked amazing even though technically they were not full 1920x1080 resolution. RAW is THAT GOOD.

The 6D would probably work for you for a while as it does get the "5D look" - but if you're serious about shooting A LOT then the 5DIII is the step up that you'd probably just end up doing pretty quickly anyway.

Try to talk to someone in person who can show you the RAW video process - if it doesn't seem like too much work to you then the payoffs of M.L. RAW video will be right up your alley.

EDIT: The Nikon D750 and D810 have very impressive specs - but the image has issues, mainly terrible highlights handling. The transition into blown-out highlights is awful on these 2 cameras. Check any footage you like...if you can even find any. It's awful on the highlights, looks like old video cameras. I'd personally never want to have one on any serious shoot. And they can't shoot video in RAW.

And although the 6D has more aliasing and moire than the 5DIII and some others, it's still as good or better in that specific regard than the 5D mkII.
 
Last edited:
ML is far from underdeveloped. It is actually the most developed DSLR firmware on the planet in terms of useful video related stuff packed in.
Even if you don't shoot raw video it is next to stupid not to use it on a Canon DSLR/mirrorless camera if you are shooting video. No other photo camera firmware comes close in terms of exposure and focusing aids. Actually, cancel that: even most video cameras in higher price segments don't come close... :)

If you are going to shoot narrative, make yourself a favor and find/rent a 5dm3 with ML to try the raw mode.

@DPStewart:
(CompactFlash is not CFast. :))
 
The 5D Mark III is a huge upgrade to the 6D, without a doubt. Even the small things like the 6D having no headphone port make a huge difference!
 
Thank you guys so much for all of your thoughts. I'm hearing that the 5D generally will have more options than the 6D. So I'm thinking the 5D is probably the better way to go. The reasons I have experimented with the A7s or the GH4 is because of their still image quality. Anyone seen or taken any stills with these cameras or know anything about them?
 
Just to be clear, I do not really have the courage to download Magic Lantern with a camera this pricey and I record to an external audio device. Under these conditions, am I still right to be assume the 5D will turn out better video than the 6D? If so, why?
 
Also note if you are buying a brand new 5D3 then it will likely come with the newest firmware which ML hasn't been ported to work on. You would have to use EOS Utility to first downgrade to a previous firmware before you can actually install ML.
 
Yfeatures said:
Just to be clear, I do not really have the courage to download Magic Lantern with a camera this pricey and I record to an external audio device. Under these conditions, am I still right to be assume the 5D will turn out better video than the 6D? If so, why?
Click to expand...

If you wont use ML, the 5D is still a better camera, the image is much cleaner of artefacts and can be sharpened in post, it's just a better image and camera than the 6D. Want an even better one than the 5D? get a Nikon D750, which has both higher video quality and higher stills quality.

in terms of pure video quality it's: 6D<5D<D750<5Dhacked.
 
I wouldn't get the 6D... for video, it lacks the sound monitoring port, something I use a lot.
For stills it lacks the sync port for when not shooting with a trigger.

It is a hazzle working with the raw hack, like Samuel mentions, it takes a loooong time converting those files into ProRes or similar.
But that Canon raw just looks so damn good :)

Shot with available light in 50fps (I might have twistored it in some shots - Password is "dvxtest")


I had too much time on my hands visiting my mom in Norway:

 
If you're not going to use ML, and you care a lot about stills, the D750 and D810 are clearly better than any sub-$4K Canon (my personal opinion, based on the 5D3 being soft and low-res, the 7D2 being "uninspired", and every other model including the 6D still having aliasing/moire).
 
ML raw is mostly hassle on set since you can't preview the footage high res in camera.
Post workflow can be really straightforward. Transcoding to DNG is very fast. Then just edit, color, finish, export end result using the raw files. All this in Resolve. Done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top