Is the 5D mk III worth $1000 more then the 6D?

[Guest]

I paid $10,000.00 for an XL-H1 just a few winters ago.
28 Days Later grossed $45,000,000.00 @ the box office.
I had no idea Act Of Valor was shot with a bunch of MkII's...

and y'all are complaining about aliasising from from $2k full frame camera and 1/2 the footage it shoots is ruined? lol

C'mon fellas. Think.
let's put energy in writing good scripts & capturing great moments. Not the 6D moire.

I find in narrative film making, that the camera is the least important element. Whereas in motion image making as an aesthetic, commemorative, or specific scientific uses, the image is very important. The motion imaging tools are dictated by an entertainment industry (key word industry) whereas digital stills tools are dictated by amateurs. Who has the better image and faster developing tech? Awww.

 

[maarek]

I find in narrative film making, that the camera is the least important element. Whereas in motion image making as an aesthetic, commemorative, or specific scientific uses, the image is very important.

Well yeah sure. But narrative films make way more cash.

 

[J.F.R.]

I paid $10,000.00 for an XL-H1 just a few winters ago.
28 Days Later grossed $45,000,000.00 @ the box office.
I had no idea Act Of Valor was shot with a bunch of MkII's...

and y'all are complaining about aliasising from from $2k full frame camera and 1/2 the footage it shoots is ruined? lol

C'mon fellas. Think.
let's put energy in writing good scripts & capturing great moments. Not the 6D moire.

Act Of Valor was shot with Mark II as well as Film. Also using Very Expensive lenses with a Million dollar+ budget. Secondly 6d Moire shows more Moire than the 5d Mark II.
Finally yes you are correct, good scripts are more important.

 

[bertzie]

If moire is ruining 50% of your shots, stop making videos about people in pinstripe suits standing in front of brick walls.

 

[Guest]

Well yeah sure. But narrative films make way more cash.

For the makers of videos, yes, narrative films make more money than a squirrel hunting art project in 8k, but for the camera manufactures the consumer end makes more money, and so more RnD can go into products.

Look how the stills camera market has overlapped the video market. The $3k D800 has a sensor with better native DR than the Arri Alexa. The 5dmk2 smoked many of the video cameras available at the time in low light and aesthetics. Camera phones made more amazing developments in a much shorter span than cinema video has. Computers and mobile devices have improved computing power far quicker than cinema video has.

What I am saying, is if consumers are whining for 8k 128,000 iso, 18 stops dr, and Joe Moviemaker is saying 2k is good enough, then the consumer should be getting the tech first, and then add 3gSDI and heavy shoulder mounts to it for cinema guys, if they care.

Regardless, the biggest money for cameras is in the masses. Not saying the cinema dept aren't lucrative. Just saying I wish the video world was a bit more like the stills world.

 

[bertzie]

The tech for higher end video really isn't there. 2k is good enough for video because that's what 99% of the market is going to be seeing it at. The reason they focus R&D on high end items is because the people that are buying those high end items can afford the additional cost of buying a cutting edge item and are going to have use for it. That tech then trickles down to lower models. Video on DSLRs is still largely an afterthought. While there are plenty of people that buy a DSLR for video, the main focus of them is stills. The addition of things like video is because consumers want more features. The only reason the average person even shoots at 1080p is because everything is going to 1080p.

 

[Guest]

The tech for higher end video really isn't there.

Meanwhile... in Black Magic Design Land.....

2k is good enough for video because that's what 99% of the market is going to be seeing it at.

In the entertainment world, there is actually little reason to go above 2k. Not only can few people tell the difference from where they sit in relation to the screen between 2k and higher resolutions, but there is no infrastructure for seamless playback of data rates required for anything over HD. So, there is little reason for the entertainment industry to waste resources on tools that don't give them real world benefits. The consumer and science world have more uses for higher resolution video.

The reason they focus R&D on high end items is because the people that are buying those high end items can afford the additional cost of buying a cutting edge item and are going to have use for it. That tech then trickles down to lower models.

Tech goes both ways. Yes, the massive data pipelines and rendering for raw 4k and 8k have been more recent, but true 1080p has been a reality in the consumer world for a long time. So, yes, for some of these beast cameras, there is a need to start at the top. But tech like cleaner imagers with smaller photo sites is pioneered in the consumer world, and that tech get used in larger sensors. Since s35 sensor video cameras have a smaller market, they are made in smaller batches, making them expensive. However in the stills world, that is not the case. DSLR sensors have been out performing video sensors for a while.

Video on DSLRs is still largely an afterthought.

Which is crazy that they have been so well adopted by the video market. The large numbers that a prosumer DSLR can sell allow it to have an ff35 sensor that outputs 1080p30fps, and not even being a dedicated video camera, more just a by product of the live view system. The developments that can happen in a consumer camera, and the low prices that can be achieved by selling to the masses is incredible.

While there are plenty of people that buy a DSLR for video, the main focus of them is stills. The addition of things like video is because consumers want more features. The only reason the average person even shoots at 1080p is because everything is going to 1080p.

Yes, this is exactly what we are talking about...

-Once video on stills cameras gets to higher resolutions, stills photographers will find it desirable. Because it will then be a silent high burst rate stills function. ala 1d-c.
-Dslar's have a larger market, so they have better tech at lower prices.
-Even a stills camera with video as an after thought is producing more desirable video than many "dedicated" video cameras.
-The only reason people even shoot at 1080p is because of the consumer television market. Has little to do with the f900, Genesis, or varicam. 1080HD has existed since the 80's. Reagan is quoted as saying HD was an important technology. How long have computers had HD or higher resolutions?

The addition of things like video is because consumers want more features.

That's the idea. If consumers become educated as to what is "good" the market tries to make a profit on that. 101 stuff. The average person however, doesn't study or spend countless hours finding out what is possible in the video world, and what makes the perfect video camera. So, there is little reason for the video manufacturing industry to bother. However, there are far more photography enthusiasts who are very critical of image quality. And many pros are owner/operators. Now since stills cameras are getting video functions, all that has to happen is for the stills people to wish their video function looked as good as their stills function. But there is still a stigma in the stills world, and a separation of functions. On photography forums you often read people angry that video is being used as a marketing tool, when they don't even want video on their camera. But as long as the video is not hype, or the main selling point of the "upgraded" camera, and the video actually looks good, I think photographers will appreciate it...

...Look at the 1d-c. The 4k 24p mode is actually being hyped as a high burst continuous stills jpeg mode, for capturing that 'illusive' moment between times. If the video quality were not an after thought, like the way it is on the 1d-c, then all people can actually see the benefits of higher end video quality.

The 1d-c shows that high end video is possible. the 1d-x shows that it can start at a lower price bracket. And imagine if you swapped out that higher end 14fps 400,000 cycles mirror box/shutter, and all the bells and whistles, and you could get that video quality into a $3000 body, no doubt.

As the consumer sees the benefits of a technology, so the real changes happen. Consumer electronics have been making all the advancements, and high end cinema has been benefiting from consumer tech. Yes, they will have the biggest fast first, but that is not what I am asking for. I am asking for what is possible, but the average consumer doesn't know or care about.

The only company that doesn't have horses in the race, and would be able to shake up the paradigm is Nikon. But they don't have horses in the race; they don't have a video division, and so they are not going to be wasting money on that until consumers start requesting it, and most photographers aren't. Once they see that 4k and 8k video without aliasing and moire looks nice,and that it can be used as a glorified silent high burst rate photography, they will start demanding it.

So, my money is probably going to stay with the stills market. The video market just doesn't have the numbers in sales, and all the money comes from the broadcast and motion picture industry, which has a different set of needs than I do.



So, despite there being truth to the trickle down theory because prototypes are expensive, in the bigger scheme of things, the tech is actually coming from the consumer market. From computers, mobile phones, home entertainment systems, and stills cameras.

 

[Guest]

To further the point that consumer electronics is what will drive higher end video. While pros are still arguing about 4k vs 2k.....

4k in cellphones.....
http://www.redsharknews.com/technol...s-like-4k-is-coming-to-nearly-all-smartphones

 

[bertzie]

There's a flaw with that thinking. Consumer level tech doesn't have all the features of a high-end product, so how can they drive the research for it? The high-end users are the ones pushing the products to its limits, that need better tech. It's that need that drives the development of new tech. The reason 4k is coming so slowly to DSLRs is because it's not a major driver in that tech. People that NEED 4k can already get it. If you need 4k, you too can go out and get it right now today, the 1d-C, the C500, the RED cameras, ect ect. I'd bet hat that we'll see a 4k consumer level camcorder long before we see a 4k consumer level DSLR.

 

[Ricky Perrone]

Thanks for the insight J.F.R. Im not in a rush to buy now, so I ll be checking all the options...
5D MarkII is tempting (in fact I can find great deals from friends photographers that are moving to MKIII) but it covers only one of the two basic things I want (FF & low light).
Of course its better from my 60D/600D but not as much as I want...

Yeah, the Mk 2 has the low light thing covered too, it sounds like your trying to talk yourself into the 6d. Save 500$ and get the better cam.

 

[Ricky Perrone]

If moire is ruining 50% of your shots, stop making videos about people in pinstripe suits standing in front of brick walls.

Hahaha awesome

 

[rzr219]

I am looking to go full frame in 2013 from my Canon 60D. I mostly do wedding video but do also do a handful of wedding photography each year. The 6D is looking good at $1999, can someone explain to me why the 5D MK III is worth a $1000 more?

It appears the 6D is even a little better in low light. I know the 5D MK III has better auto-focus (not much help in video) and has a headphone out, which is nice. What else am I missing? HDMI out in the future for the MK III? What about the 6D?

I also do video and photos, video is a HPX250 and we were using a 50D, however we needed a full frame and faster focus and better low light (High ISO) as wedding are fast and no second chances. So I rented the 5D-III and loved it. Just bought one when it went on 20% off 3 weeks ago. I love this camera, super fast focus and great ISO control. Its a good investment for wedding, sports and fast subjects. If you are shooting just portrait work ,then anything will work with enough light. Spend you money wisely and for the long term and you will go far in business.