PegLeg Media
Well-known member
random test shots... Which cam would you get for video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXNeHZPbwtE&hd=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXNeHZPbwtE&hd=1
Canon 6d vs Panasonic GH3
- Thread starter PegLeg Media
- Start date
They seem pretty comparable from your shoot, with the Canon 6D having somewhat shallower DOF and the GH3 having somewhat higher resolution.
I am curious about the color of the gentleman's tie in your first shot, as the two cameras render the color of the tie very differently. Which one was more accurate ?
Also, you definitely need some form of stabilization for the hand-held shots as they were "jitter city" much of the time. A stabilized lens might be enough to fix this.
I am curious about the color of the gentleman's tie in your first shot, as the two cameras render the color of the tie very differently. Which one was more accurate ?
Also, you definitely need some form of stabilization for the hand-held shots as they were "jitter city" much of the time. A stabilized lens might be enough to fix this.
I'm a 6D fan, and I got one as a B-cam for my C100. The low light performance is phenomenal, and it definitely gives the C100 a run for it's money as the best low light camera around (until the Sony A7s comes out). I certainly find it easier to make the high ISO shots on the 6D look better than I can on the C100, though that can be down to my own shortcomings as a camera operator.
I understand conventional wisdom holds that Panasonic GH cameras have higher resolution than Canon DSLRs, though in your example posted above, in the close up of the guy in the tie, the 6D certainly looks more high resolution than the GH3, though it looks like the GH3 was exposed a little hotter than the 6D, which can destroy some detail.
All that being said, the GH3 looks great too.
I understand conventional wisdom holds that Panasonic GH cameras have higher resolution than Canon DSLRs, though in your example posted above, in the close up of the guy in the tie, the 6D certainly looks more high resolution than the GH3, though it looks like the GH3 was exposed a little hotter than the 6D, which can destroy some detail.
All that being said, the GH3 looks great too.
maranfilms
Veteran
I've posted this finding before, we spend so much time finding the right lens camera combo and do lots of tests and we see things the avg viewer never will. I had a clip with a bunch of different cameras, gh2,g6,5d,t3i,ect. even some older 1/3rd cams cause I had them, anyways everyone I asked, said without hesitation 5d2 every time as to which image they like the best. The reason I did the test was to get an idea as to what look is most appeasing to a layman's eye, people that know zero about production or cameras. It surprised me cause I was like look how much sharper this shot is than that one, nope didn't matter it was the overall look that counts to avg folk.
My experience confirms this too, but only for ungraded footage. Canon cameras have a very nice look straight out of the camera, but with proper grading almost any camera can look really good.
maranfilms
Veteran
haha, That's funny you say that Dingo cause it was ungraded footage straight out of the box.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I have 1 60D and a 600D and rent a 5D3 when I need it. I need it more all the time so I'm Looking a buying one. The other choice is the 6D because I work with 6 meter crane and the wifi would fit in the workflow. I've been holding off because of conplaints' of moire, although in 4 years with my cameras it's not an issue. What's your experience with the 6D?
cpreston
Veteran
Rockmore, I am pretty sure that the WiFi does not work in video mode.
I was using both a 6D and a C100 in dual camera shoots. The 6D has more native built in noise reduction than the the C100. I never tested to see which could actually produce more DR and detail at higher ISO's, but both were worlds ahead of my 60D. The wonderful thing about the Cinema EOS cameras and the new Canon full frames is that you could finally start to use your aperture for depth of field and ISO's for exposure in normal lighting. It was a revelation after having always had to shoot wide open with a 60D in order to reduce the ugly noise.
While I was using the 6D and the C100 together, I would usually use the 6D on close-ups in order to reduce it's obvious lack of sharpness compared to the C100. People always preferred the 6D due to the lower depth of field on the close-ups. I've found that the average person does not respond to the tech things that camera people judge a camera by, but they do respond to low depth of field.
I was using both a 6D and a C100 in dual camera shoots. The 6D has more native built in noise reduction than the the C100. I never tested to see which could actually produce more DR and detail at higher ISO's, but both were worlds ahead of my 60D. The wonderful thing about the Cinema EOS cameras and the new Canon full frames is that you could finally start to use your aperture for depth of field and ISO's for exposure in normal lighting. It was a revelation after having always had to shoot wide open with a 60D in order to reduce the ugly noise.
While I was using the 6D and the C100 together, I would usually use the 6D on close-ups in order to reduce it's obvious lack of sharpness compared to the C100. People always preferred the 6D due to the lower depth of field on the close-ups. I've found that the average person does not respond to the tech things that camera people judge a camera by, but they do respond to low depth of field.
That is so true!!!
...I've also seen this super shallow DOF backfire, where the filmmaker shot everything with a Full Frame 35mm camera with their lens wide-open for almost every shot and it made you feel like something was wrong with your eyes because of the paper thin DOF.
When you consider that almost ALL the films we have seen at the movie theaters has been shot in the 35mm or Super35 Cine format ( almost the same as APS-C ), the Full Frame 35mm Still Photo format really is an anomaly, just like VistaVision films. ( which I doubt were ever shot at T 1.3 )
cpreston
Veteran
Trust me, I'm not advocating for low depth of field as a rule. The nice thing about the newer full frame and S35 cameras is that their sensitivity allows you to close down the aperture and bump up the ISO until you get the correct depth of field for the shot. If you want razor thin depth of field on wide angle lens so that you feel like you right up in a persons space but are only focusing on their eyes, you can get it. If you want to have the background well defined so that you can see what their eyes are looking at, you can get that, too.
Like I said, I like having the option of using my ISO to control exposure and my aperture to control depth of field.
Like I said, I like having the option of using my ISO to control exposure and my aperture to control depth of field.
With f/0.95 lenses and SpeedBooster adapters that give you 1 - 1.5 additional F-stops of light and shallower DOF, the Micro 4/3 format has no problems getting the correct DOF.
Yes, if you want to shoot in ultra low-light conditions the Micro 4/3 format is not a great choice, but otherwise it's quite competitive with other DSLR brands.
cpreston
Veteran
Yeah, those speedboosters are a nice option. Really, though, I'm not talking about low light. I will shoot at f/8 and an ISO of 6400 rather than f/1.4 and ISO 400 on these newer cameras if that's what is needed to capture what is happening. One of the great things about the C100/C300 is that you can head indoors, crank up the ISO, and still have the depth of field and image quality of much smaller chip cameras.
80,000 ISO does make a difference...
Though I don't know what's the highest you can go with a C100 and still get a clean relatively "grainless" image ?
Yes, that is what I would do as well. I ve been shooting with Canon DSLRs since the beginning of that "DSLR revolution" and despite their flaws, I never even came close to switch to another brand although I was always keeping my eyes open to the other brands offerings. I ve built a Canon ''system'' all those years so its not that easy to switch. However that A7s is the only camera I ve been so impressed with and has made me thinking...! I also have a Canon XF100 and Im sooooo close to sell it in favor of the Sony AX100. (I always carry a ''proper video camera'' in my bag). aaaaahhh I feel Im being drawn by Sony.....