Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Once I got to use the mk3 I sold the mk2 because it felt like alot less user friendly and I don't have to worry about moire.
Is the 5D mark 2 dead?
- Thread starter Ruben/Sheri
- Start date
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Again, don't get me wrong, I'd love to go to the MK3, but I have grip gear and other needs that are higher priority right now. The MK2 is "good enough".
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
For video the mark 2 seems still superior, I have seen allot of 5d mark 3 vidz and the post sharpening gives it a weird electronic fake look, as aposed to the mark 2, detail looks to come from within the cam, not too sharp not to soft just right IMO despite the artifacting but no camera is perfect I guess...
squig
Veteran
I've done camera tests in the same location with the same lighting and the MKIII totally blew the MKII away (subway platform, 20mm lens, 5000 ISO MKIII vs 1250 ISO MKII) I was able to get much deeper DOF with the MKIII and I was satisfied with the results, unlike the MKII shots which looked very lo-fi (which is a look I like for a lot of stuff).
If the post sharpening looks fake people are either overdoing it, using the wrong tool, or they're sharpening in camera.
If the post sharpening looks fake people are either overdoing it, using the wrong tool, or they're sharpening in camera.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
The point is, the *impetus* for the whole removal of the OLPF craze, not that it didn't actually do anything. There was a definite reason that drove everyone to it, which is/was the softness of the video. People didn't just decide to remove it for kicks.
Who "read?" I had the thing and tested it for 3 days. I have all L series lenses, so optically speaking - I was fine there. As for post sharpening, sorry, but that to me means the camera has a handicap. Not all of us post everything we shoot and if you're shooting a job and handing off the footage, you can mention post-sharpening if you're ok looking like you have an inferior camera, and then, who knows if they ever will post sharpen by the time the footage gets posted. And adding post sharpening to the post production budget isn't always going (or ever) to go over well with a client.
As for the "MK3 destroys the Mk2 all day and way more at night" comment, I'm not too sure about that. I've yet to have a producer ask me to shoot anything on the MKIII, and the footage I'm making with the MKII and the VAF filter to my mind is phenomenal. No, the MKII is not dead. Not even close.
dustylense
Veteran
You're great at taking things out of context. I stated at the end that as a "Stills camera with a video function" the MK3 destroys the MK2. KEEP IN MIND THAT IT IS A STILLS CAMERA FIRST AND FOREMOST! And every bit of it's STILLS capability outshines the MK2, ALL DAY ALL NIGHT.
One thing that I realize is that Canon didn't make it super sharp so that WE could mix it with our Mk2's. Have you EVER thought about that?
Do you think that L glass is the end all in sharpness? I guarantee you that I have more L glass than you can think of. Zeiss, Leica, old Olys, and lots of Nikkor glass kills most of the L line up.
Finally, do you think that some cameras have sharpness enhanced? Gh2 comes to mind. Are any of them full frame? D800 might have a sharpness edge, but there is still a ton of moire. The biggest request was to rid moire in the MK3. They did a fine job of it.
Fine, you don't like the camera. Move along. There are plenty of cameras for you to suggest. My suggestion is that if you want to shoot full frame video with a Canon, the MK3 is the one to get. Guess what, RED files need post sharpening too. SO what?! Do clients think that is an inferior camera? Thats why there is a sharpen filter in every digital imaging program we all have ever worked with. All of them!
dustylense
Veteran
These are my feelings and findings as well.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I think it is worth considering 'keeping the powder dry'
We all want a $5k highframerate/rawshooting/headphone-sound/2k whatever wondercam that may be just around the corner - the BMD for example came from no-where
Neither the 5d2 or 3 are that good, personally, as a 5d2 owner I have minimal interest in the the 3,
For a start both have p1ssp00r mini HDMI and a 'guarenteed to spin when you follow focus' single mount point
If I was buying from scratch Id get the 2 used and keep my powder dry for a new camera or spend the difference on lights - whatever..
S
We all want a $5k highframerate/rawshooting/headphone-sound/2k whatever wondercam that may be just around the corner - the BMD for example came from no-where
Neither the 5d2 or 3 are that good, personally, as a 5d2 owner I have minimal interest in the the 3,
For a start both have p1ssp00r mini HDMI and a 'guarenteed to spin when you follow focus' single mount point
If I was buying from scratch Id get the 2 used and keep my powder dry for a new camera or spend the difference on lights - whatever..
S
Last edited:
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
It's all subjective, if we all saw things the same way life would be boring. As for me post sharpening is bla! =)
For many of us of course that is completely irrelevant as we couldn't care less about an HDMI out & don't want to use a follow focus. It's better to appreciate the unique qualities of using a DSLR for video & not try & turn them into something that they are not.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of cheese in Africa.
But... the MKIII is *softer* than the MKII. How is making the newer model softer going to allow its footage to mix with the older and sharper model's footage? They made it *softer* (I'd assume) to combat the aliasing. That seems to me to make far more sense.
Okey dokey.
... by making it *soft*.
"Move along?" Are you serious? I'll "move along" when I feel like it, chief.
I'm well aware of in-camera sharpening and post-sharpening. And I'm also well aware of client expectations and perceptions, and I stand by what I said regarding the post sharpening. I see people line up to buy the newest thing as if it's automatically better than what it's replacing and I'm sorry, but I'll be sticking with the awesome MKII for a while longer.
The 5D3 is *not* softer than the 5D2. I shoot them side by side with the same lenses & the footage is indistinguishable.
nikon_obsessed
Active member
mk2 is not sharper than mk3, more so with vaf filter. the filter softens the image.
dustylense
Veteran
+1. Not to mention the fact that you can now really ease your mind about problem shots. Shot some moving heads the other week where I had 10 different sitters. NEVER did I worry about what they were wearing. Pin stripe shirts and other problem fabrics. Had I shot on the MK2 I would have had that all embarrassing uncomfortable comments "I have to ask you to change your shirt". With the MK3 I just shot and didn't worry.
THe MK2 is not dead. It's still a very capable camera as long as you realize where you might run into problems. The MK3 resolved those issues. The choice of codec is also very welcome. Headphone jack, do I need to argue it? Better build and weather proofing. On the stills side (WHICH IS WHAT THE CAMERA IS) is completely a better camera. 2-3 stops better low light, AF, again build, dual slots, the monitor, all sorts of functions that aren't in the Mk2.
THe Mk3 is just a better camera, period.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Absolutely - I really enjoy my 5d2 as a bcam, as an acam it was horrid
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Depends on what you're doing. I shoot purely narrative stuff. VERY rare for me to really run into it's major shortcomings (moire, rolling shutter) in a situation where I am in total control of everything. having them eliminated would be nice (MK3), but the mk2 is still a VERY capable camera that can be used to shoot an amazing looking film.
Adam J McKay
Veteran
Does the 5Dmk2 still turn on? Shoot video? Then it is not dead. If it doesn't do those things, try charging the battery.
I use 2 MkIIIs and 1 MkII (will sell it soon). If one were to shoot both cams side-by-side, same lens, same material, the MkII would look sharper straight out of the camera due to false detail from aliasing (both cameras set to 0 sharpening). Resolution chart tests showed the MkII at around ~700 lines horizontal resolution and the MkIII at ~850. Once sharpened in post, the MkIII looks much better in both resolution and acutance. Unless one oversharpens, there are no significant adverse side effects to bokeh and overall image quality. In a shot where the MkII has deal-breaking moire or aliasing, the MkIII after post sharpening looks fantastic with very little or no moire + aliasing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkFmhKoUEv4 (wide angle brick/tile on ground shots not possible with MkII without massive aliasing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWXim4E-z58 (these shots would torture the MkII while not being as sharp as the MkIII)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkFmhKoUEv4 (wide angle brick/tile on ground shots not possible with MkII without massive aliasing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWXim4E-z58 (these shots would torture the MkII while not being as sharp as the MkIII)
Scott Freestyle
Well-known member
I had a carpenter build me a wardrobe in my sons room 2 weeks ago. I hired him because I had seen his work and was told he was a nice chap. When he came through the door I paid no attention to the tools he was using, they had obviously served him well over the years as he was regularly employed and created beautifully finished furniture. His trusty old Dewalt circular saw looked beaten, but he could still make cuts like a hot knife through butter with it...
Oops wrong thread... I thought this was a DIY forums ... Sorry!!
Just to let you guys know... His son bought the new 2012 Dewalt saw... They are both very happy with their Saw's.. And have never once questioned one another's decisions to purchase the tools they use.
Oops wrong thread... I thought this was a DIY forums ... Sorry!!
Just to let you guys know... His son bought the new 2012 Dewalt saw... They are both very happy with their Saw's.. And have never once questioned one another's decisions to purchase the tools they use.