Full frame "look"; real or a myth?

J

jamani

Active member
I have been shooting DSLR video for two years now on the 60d and now I'm at a point where I could use an upgrade in my image quality. As any other beginner may attest to, there is this notion in the rookie world that the 5d produces better images both in still and video modes other factors held constant. Until you want to make that upgrade from your t2i and you do your research and can't find a consensus from the pros on whether this is true or not. One argument I have seen thrown out there is that the reason people esp. rookies think the 5D is superior in quality lies in the fact that most of those people producing those breathtaking images on vimeo using the 5D are pros who could produce the same results regardless of the camera they use.

So my question. Is there really a distinct full frame "look" that's different from the aps-c look everything else held constant? And if it's there is it worth the $2k+ difference in price? Apart from better low light performance, the ability to use higher ISOs and go wider, all of which don't really matter in a controlled setting which is how I shoot most of the time, is there a real advantage in shelling out the extra mullah for FF? I guess I'm only interested in how the final image looks and tools that will help me achieve better images and not necessarily make my job easier.
 
The only thing I would attribute to the "Full Frame Look" would be extremely shallow depth of field, which is not always a good thing.
( fine if you planned for it, bad if you don't know how to control your DOF )

If you are looking for a lower cost upgrade, you might want to take a look at this footage:

Canon 5D Mark III vs Panasonic GH3

Make sure you download the full 1080 HD 518 MB version from Vimeo, or you won't be able to see how much detail is being captured.

The GH3 footage has a bit of a magenta cast to it, which may have been a white balance issue, and certainly something that is very easy to fix in post.
 
To me, if you're looking at shoots in controlled environments were uber-wide shots(a Tokina 11-16 will handle nearly any wide need you could need on a GH3) and lighting and lighting I wouldn't hesitate to go with something like the GH3. It has a superb feature set, full HD resolution, and fair low light performance and grain structure.

That "Full Frame Mojo" is a mixed bag. Some people swear it exists (and while I can not yet personally spot it I'm sure it exists somewhat).

So, if you're in no super rush. Wait a few months, snag yourself a GH3 when the stock is readily available, and get to work.

If I today had my original capital and was looking at cameras, it would go three ways. The GH3, the BMCC, or an FS100.
 
The 5D Mkiii can resolve more lines of resolution than the 7D and T2i, even more than the 5D Mkii. So yes, it's technically a better camera than those. I have owned a T2i and 7D, and can tell you from experience, that the combination of the new Mkiii and L series quality lenses (doesn't have to be Canon, but higher quality lenses) lead to a different look to the footage than what you get in the 7D and T2i. While those cameras are great, and likely many people who watch your footage won't see the difference, it's there. Especially as you go up in screen size. Check out the videos that Phil Bloom has done with the latest 5D, and other high end cameras, and go back to the ones he shot with the 5D Mkii a few years ago.

The GH2/3 have different sensors than the Canon, and give a different look and feel. While I love the look, it's not what I want. They have their own "mojo".

I don't know what you are expecting in your "image quality upgrade", maybe if you posted a few examples we could give you positive feedback. It might be that you are doing something that can be corrected without upgrading. Often lighting is a critical problem for less experienced shooters, for example. Also, upgrading your lenses might be worth looking at. You can always change bodies. The money on lenses is absolutely worth more than the body upgrade, IMHO.

But for me, upgrading to the 5D Mkiii was a huge upgrade. Why? I can actually record decent interview audio directly into the camera, if need be. And the image quality appears better. I've only done a few recordings with the Mkiii, but you can take a look at them on my vimeo site. The tribal carver, and the Jefferson County Marine Resource Committee are both done in the last month with the 5D. They look different to me, and not just because of the lighting. Others were done with the 7D, Canon xf305 and xf105, and earlier ones done on a HMC150. Cheryl Strayed was shot on a xf305 (I shot her first with a 7D, but the image was so poor quality, I reshot her moments later with the 305). Dorothy Allison was shot with the 7D. The client loved the look, but I was not overly impressed.
www.vimeo.com/mountainstone/videos

Nice review on the 5D Mkiii comparing it technically to the ii and 7D. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii
 
Last edited:
IMO the FF look is less about DOF (though that's also a part of the mix for many) and more about tonal gradation and better low light performance - FF sensors have a more natural look, highlight rolloff is smoother and less posterization and superior low light performance - generally speaking of course. In terms of detail there's no advantage, that's well documented.

Whether the 5d3 is worth the price vs. a 60d, 8string nailed some of the high points - the bitrate is dramatically improved on the 5d3, bigger/better LCD, headphone jack, better controls and so on. Superior image, better audio and the 5d3 has the clean HDMI out coming - those are worth the difference to me.
 
FF look exists just like medium format look exists. It's not only about the shallow DOF It's also about compressed perspective that the "filmic look" has .
compressed perspective along with the shallow DOF have traditionally been the "filmic look" attributes(as opposed to a home video small chip stretched perspective look). Every famous DP strives to shoot 70mm. They have good reason for it. Their works looks breathtaking in that format.
FF gets you half way there...
 
FF DSLR absolutely has a "Look" that is different than APS-C or even 2K/4K footage. One of my films (shot on 5D2) screened last night on a 30' wide screen (projected Blu Ray) next to Red Epic footage. I liked the look of my film more. Now a LOT of that is who is behind the camera, but again, my FF footage shot with vintage still lenses does not look like other footage.
 
90% myth

clue #1: when talking about FF on these forums you're talking about a photo camera which has a sensor which is NOT designed for video use

clue #2: FS100, C100, etc... s35 sensors, designed for video, best most if not all FF dslrs in every area. Sensor size matters not, pixel size on the other hand....

clue #3: A sensor is just a bunch of dots. the LENS is what creates the image which is projected onto the sensor, the sensor just has to capture it as faithfully as possible

clue #4: You can use FF lenses on s35 cameras, hence, the same image being projected, just not seeing all of it.


And that last one is where the debate comes in, whether using a wider focal length for equivalent FF FOV changes the dynamics of the image for noticeably better.

I for one, choose a camera/sensor that was built soley for video aquasition, and fits my particular needs, over any FF dslr.

In the end, it's all complete rubbish if your acting is wood, your sound is onboard, and your lighting is 'as is'
 
Gary Huff said:
'course you did!
Click to expand...

Haha, I mean you would expect that right.

I would like to shoot on an Epic sometime just to see how everything else we do (lighting, art direction, shot selection, etc...) translates. The 5D sensor and Red Epic Sensor are about the same size I believe so it might retain some of that FF look. The biggest impact would probably be the lenses unless I put expensive PL mounts on all my 50 year old glass.
 
I for one didn't say "better" I said "different". FF DSLR footage absolutely has a "look" (especially with vintage glass that seems to accentuate that "look"). Is it better, that is 1000% subjective. However it IS "different".
 
jamani said:
I have been shooting DSLR video for two years now on the 60d and now I'm at a point where I could use an upgrade in my image quality.
Click to expand...

I shoot with a 5D2 and a 60D and also looking for an upgrade, they are both starting to look soft compared to what's coming out. The BMCC is the one to own when they get it together and I think worth the wait. I had considered a GH3, but with a quality wide 2.8 zoom it's going to be up there in price. With a BMCC I can keep all my Canon glass. I'd keep working the 60D till mid 2013 if you can wait.
 
photochris said:
FF sensors have a more natural look, highlight rolloff is smoother and less posterization and superior low light performance - generally speaking of course
Click to expand...

If you put a Canon 5D MK3 camera up against the smaller sensor of the Canon C100/C300/C500 cameras, I seriously doubt that the 5D will have a more natural look, better highlight rolloff, or superior low light performance.

With almost any attribute you choose to measure with, the Canon Cxx camera line with the significantly smaller sensor is going to produce much better results than the Full Frame Canon 5D MK3.

I hold by my original post that the Full Frame 35mm format generally brings a shallower depth of field to the table ( which is sometimes too shallow if the DOP is not carefully controlling this ), and not much else.
 
TheDingo said:
If you put a Canon 5D MK3 camera up against the smaller sensor of the Canon C100/C300/C500 cameras, I seriously doubt that the 5D will have a more natural look, better highlight rolloff, or superior low light performance.

With almost any attribute you choose to measure with, the Canon Cxx camera line with the significantly smaller sensor is going to produce much better results than the Full Frame Canon 5D MK3.

I hold by my original post that the Full Frame 35mm format generally brings a shallower depth of field to the table ( which is sometimes too shallow if the DOP is not carefully controlling this ), and not much else.
Click to expand...

The OP is looking at another DSLR, not $6500/15,000/25,000 cinema camera's - otherwise you could add the FS100/700, the F3, the BMCC, used Red's and so on. That's a ridiculous comparison because they're not parallels to the original question or my answer. Against other DSLR's/mirrorless/CSC's/ILC's or whatever you want to call them - I stand behind my statement. Compared to APS-c or M43 cameras, FF does have advantages beyond shallow DOF and that's what contributes to the "FF look."

If you're looking for absolute top notch video IQ and nothing else, then yes your example of a dedicated video camera with a nice large sensor and fewer pixels is definitely the way to go, but again that's not what the OP asked.
 
Last edited:
photochris said:
The OP is looking at another DSLR, not $6500/15,000/25,000 cinema camera
Click to expand...

It boils down to sensor technology and the electronics that process what this sensor captures.

There is nothing inherent in a 35mm Full Frame Still Photo sized sensor that makes it better at anything, but the physical size and speed of the lenses used with it, will often produce a shallower depth of field relative to small format sensors.

At this point in time, it looks like Canon has decided to put it's most advanced sensor/processing technology into dedicated "Cinema" series cameras, so I don't expect to see any improvements in their regular DSLR cameras when it comes to shooting video. The 5D MK3 will likely be as good as it gets for Canon DSLRs.
 
optitek said:
FF look exists just like medium format look exists. It's not only about the shallow DOF It's also about compressed perspective that the "filmic look" has .
compressed perspective along with the shallow DOF have traditionally been the "filmic look" attributes(as opposed to a home video small chip stretched perspective look). Every famous DP strives to shoot 70mm. They have good reason for it. Their works looks breathtaking in that format.
FF gets you half way there...
Click to expand...

This is what I agree with. I don't think there's anything to it but the combination of the two.

And yes, I would LOVE to shoot 70mm, a medium format sized sensor or anything like that. I do think RED is on to something with their 65mm Comparisons, it's cool to have options.
 
ROCKMORE said:
I shoot with a 5D2 and a 60D and also looking for an upgrade, they are both starting to look soft compared to what's coming out. The BMCC is the one to own when they get it together and I think worth the wait. I had considered a GH3, but with a quality wide 2.8 zoom it's going to be up there in price. With a BMCC I can keep all my Canon glass. I'd keep working the 60D till mid 2013 if you can wait.
Click to expand...

Of course they are soft, that's the reason why you don't need letus for camcorders any more. Camcorders are sharp and they are full hd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top