Canon 5DII/III dynamic range in video mode?
- Thread starter alex1
- Start date
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
You'll get answers all over the place, from 5 at the low end to crazy claims of 10 or 11. Realistic, maybe 8, maybe.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
According to my recent tests, the MKIII is maybe 7/7.5 stops while the MKII is about 8/8.5 stops with the "Neutral" picture profile setting and contrast turned all the way down.
Using an aftermarket picture profile might get you 1/1.5 stops more range.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/19
on this test they state that the mkIII is a slight improvement over the mkII @ 200 iso. you need to go down to the "JPEG dynamic range chart". quote..."This chart shows that the Canon EOS 5D Mk III's JPEG dynamic range is very respectable, beating both the Nikon D700 and the Canon EOS 5D II, but it can't beat the Nikon D800's JPEGs until around ISO 3200."
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/ca...anon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review?artc_pg=5
david
on this test they state that the mkIII is a slight improvement over the mkII @ 200 iso. you need to go down to the "JPEG dynamic range chart". quote..."This chart shows that the Canon EOS 5D Mk III's JPEG dynamic range is very respectable, beating both the Nikon D700 and the Canon EOS 5D II, but it can't beat the Nikon D800's JPEGs until around ISO 3200."
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/ca...anon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review?artc_pg=5
david
Donald Ong
Well-known member
Is the jpeg test an accurate indicator of movie mode? I feel it is, but could be wrong. But if it is, 10.3-ish stops is impressive. Oh lookey, Chris, Mark3's beating the 2 by a good half stop at least.
Can we honestly stop claiming the mark2 is better than the 3 now? Because it just isn't.
Last edited:
Is the jpeg test an accurate indicator of movie mode? I feel it is, but could be wrong. But if it is, 10.3-ish stops is impressive. Oh lookey, Chris, Mark3's beating the 2 by a good half stop at least.
Can we honestly stop claiming the mark2 is better than the 3 now? Because it just isn't.
i havent done tests but both of the links i provided are close to each other and id say that they are fairly reasonable. if you figure RAW on the 5D's to be 11.7 stops of DR then its very fair to figure that you get from 1-2 stops below that in jpeg DR. obviously when you climb up in ISO you lose DR.
low light and noise handling is better on the 5DmkIII vs mkII. in photos id never go above 6400 on the mkII and even then if underexposed can get icky. on the mkIII i'll go to 12,800. yeah sure there is noise (grain type) but there isnt the banding and clumpling artifact like i get on he mkII so if you clean up the luma noise its ends up being notably better than the mkII. wouldnt want to shoot much up here though unless you like the vibe.
david
chris's illustrations shows something different so...? it seems almost all of the larger reviewers state that the mkII vs mkIII are very close to each other. i havent found myself dwelling on it at all. wish the mkIII was a little sharper. i own both cameras and the mkIII is just cleaner and more managable with less banding and artifacts and cleans up better in photo mode. also for video i shoot IPB not All-I. saw some odd things with All-I early on. IPB was cleaner overall from stuff i saw on the forums.
Last edited:
Totally agree. Pure silliness.
The notion that the Mark III has less DR than the Mark II is way off track.
I have worked with two mark II's since the camera came out and the Mark III for the last year. The mark III blows away the other in many situations. It's roll-off is far more organic. I have much better transitions and my blacks are not cluttered up with the same blocky compression of the former. The blacks are noticeably cleaner as well...
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Absolute DR ("can you see any detail?") is about 11 stops (10.7 stops with Flaat_11, 11.3 stops with Flaat_12). But there will be some very ugly noise in the shadows, and depending on your taste for that you'll decide on a very subjective "usable DR" number, which may be anything between 7 and 11 stops. But I like my measurements as objective as possible, so if I can see SOMETHING, it counts.
This is my light response function with a 550D, in thirds of a stop. The other Canons are very similar, including the 5D2 and the 5D3: I haven't been able to find any significative differences (a third of a stop is, admittedly, out of the measurement error of my very limited methodology).
Notice how the 12 lines at the bottom are much thicker than the ones above: that's the noise I was referring to.
BTW: jpeg and video are the same in the Canons, but not with other brands. This test was done in video mode.
This is my light response function with a 550D, in thirds of a stop. The other Canons are very similar, including the 5D2 and the 5D3: I haven't been able to find any significative differences (a third of a stop is, admittedly, out of the measurement error of my very limited methodology).
Notice how the 12 lines at the bottom are much thicker than the ones above: that's the noise I was referring to.
BTW: jpeg and video are the same in the Canons, but not with other brands. This test was done in video mode.
Last edited:
Agreed as well!
From the II to the III the high iso is actually useable in the shadow and dark areas and the II was blocky and awful.
Add that to aliasing issues just about totally removed.... I find it hard to believe anybody would argue there isnt a major improvent.
Each to their own I guess.
nikon_obsessed
Active member
because I just can't get over the fact than I AM ACTUALLY DEAD WRONG
Chris Santucci
Veteran
There is NO argument about the high ISO's. There never was as far as I've heard.
With the VAF-5D2 (which eliminates aliasing), the MKII makes better looking footage. Period.
Take a look at my tests. The MKII has slightly more dynamic range than the MKIII, handles highlights better, and does not have the clumpy noise in the shadows.
Just because the MKIII is a newer updated MKII, does not mean it HAS TO BE a better camera. If you like or need better AF, maybe the MKIII is a better camera. If you want the high ISO capability, maybe the MKIII is a better camera. If you want to monitor audio, maybe the MKIII is a better camera. If you need 1/2 stop (or so) more sensitivity, then maybe the MKIII is a better camera. If you need any of the other minor additions to the camera, etc., etc.
Look at my tests. It's right there. And trust me - I wanted to be wrong. I was in fact about sharpness, but then I discovered the real drawbacks in the MKIII (less dynamic range, worse highlight handling).
Donald Ong
Well-known member
Absolute DR ("can you see any detail?") is about 11 stops (10.7 stops with Flaat_11, 11.3 stops with Flaat_12). But there will be some very ugly noise in the shadows, and depending on your taste for that you'll decide on a very subjective "usable DR" number, which may be anything between 7 and 11 stops. But I like my measurements as objective as possible, so if I can see SOMETHING, it counts.
This is my light response function with a 550D, in thirds of a stop. The other Canons are very similar, including the 5D2 and the 5D3: I haven't been able to find any significative differences (a third of a stop is, admittedly, out of the measurement error of my very limited methodology).
Notice how the 12 lines at the bottom are much thicker than the ones above: that's the noise I was referring to.
BTW: jpeg and video are the same in the Canons, but not with other brands. This test was done in video mode.
Charts don't lie, Chris. Also, the mark3 isn't '1/2 stop more sensitive', it's generally agreed upon that it's a full 2 stops better in low light. Also, most of your 'tests' aren't really definitive and could be subject to error/different lighting...
Philip Bloom has made the switch to the mark3, so has stillmotion, joe simon, Jonah Kessel, Dan Chung, Michael Fletcher, James Miller...None of them have gone back. It can't possibly be any worse than the 2, can it? Chris, if you like your mark2, that's fine... canon isn't going to take away your mark2 even if you admit the 3 is better, which it is.
Last edited:
nikon_obsessed
Active member
why keep saying maybe when it is, sore loser
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I'm afraid we're talking about very subjective things related to image quality (that's why I only look at "absolute DR" measures, "usable" means different stuff to different people), and very different ways of using the cameras (everybody keeps pointing low light and high ISO, but Chris seems not to worry about this; he probably lights his scenes old-style, or, as many would call it, he probably lights his scenes). The VAF filter is not a good-enough solution for me, and I absolutely hate aliasing/moire, so there's no way he'll convince me that the 5D2 is better. Also, no amount of name calling will convince him that the 5D3 is better.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Chris, do you ever shoot in cinestyle dialed all the way down?
I just shot a resort promo with a 5Dmk2 as the primary camera and 60D as a b-cam so I know the Mk2 still gets the job done. I'll post a link when it's on the resort's website.
From what I've seen the Mk3 is better in no light, but I usually shoot in daylight, or light the scene as apposed to relying on high ISO. With the price of the MK2 dropping it's tempting to have a brand new one in the bag.
http://www.rythercamera.com/catalog...cts_id=30139&gclid=CIWcmZbB3bMCFVEP6wodn3EA8w
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Well, of course it still gets the job done! I just released a short (http://vimeo.com/53809385) that I shot back in february with a 550D / T2i, and I think it looks very nice indeed. But would I buy one of those today? No way. Much better options around (starting with my NEX-5N). The short looks great but moire was definitely an issue (military uniforms and old-breed Canons don't mix well).
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I shoot a lot of stills as well as HD video so I need a decent best of both worlds camera for a personal camera. Rentals for anything else I need is what I do anyway. If I can get a new 5D2 for $1,500 I think I will. I can sell my 60D and the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 55-250 which will get me more than half way. I also have good collection of primes so it will be a low cost upgrade.
Last edited: