MarkII vs markII video comparison?

MK2 is still a great camera used by tons of professional productions. Is it worth the $1800 price difference between a used MK2 and a new MK3... that's for you to decide really. End of most of the aliasing and moire issues, addition of 60fps, and true HD monitoring are awfully nice, but $1800 nice... I dunno.
 
If you can afford it the 5D3 is a really worthwhile upgrade over the 5D2. The absence of moire & aliasing is a big big plus & the new low light capability is fantastic. It is at least 2 stops better so you can happily use ISO12800 & either shoot in really low light or take the opportunity to stop down a bit so DoF is less shallow & it's easier to keep in focus. There are other neat things that you probably wouldn't appreciate unless you had previously owned a 5D2 like customisable file names so on multi-camera shoots you don't end up with duplicate filenames or that there is now a locking pin on the mode dial so you don't accidentally move the dial from Manual to AV or TV mode. The LCD is larger & higher resolution. It is also a very decent upgrade for stills with the ability to shoot stills in burst mode at 6fps & with very much faster & more accurate autofocus.
 
'the ability to shoot stills in burst mode at 6fps & with very much faster & more accurate autofocus.'
I've had a 7D for the past year and a half that already does that.

I think for myself, the only advantage of the MkIII over the II for video would be the better low light abilities.

But the MkII is no slouch here either when compared to the 7D.

Outside of less moire and jello (both of which can be avoided if you are careful), I've seen no proof that the 5DmkIII video is in any way an improvement over the MkII, either in sharpness -resolution or in dynamic range.
 
eco_bach said:
I think for myself, the only advantage of the MkIII over the II for video would be the better low light abilities.

But the MkII is no slouch here either when compared to the 7D.

Outside of less moire and jello (both of which can be avoided if you are careful), I've seen no proof that the 5DmkIII video is in any way an improvement over the MkII, either in sharpness -resolution or in dynamic range.
Click to expand...


I'm really confused by the overt fanboyism for the MKIII. I see these test clips posted shot on the MKIII with the OLPF removed and it looks like MKII footage. Yeah, the MKIII has the low noise high sensitivity, but how many people even shoot in extreme low light anyway?

As for moire and "jello," yes absolutely, if you know what you're doing this is never a problem. It never has been for me in the over 2 years I've been shooting on the MKII not to mention, I'm always the one who notices aliasing, not my clients.

A MKII with a VAF-5D2 is amazing.[h=3][/h]
 
Chris Santucci said:
I'm really confused by the overt fanboyism for the MKIII. I see these test clips posted shot on the MKIII with the OLPF removed and it looks like MKII footage. Yeah, the MKIII has the low noise high sensitivity, but how many people even shoot in extreme low light anyway?

As for moire and "jello," yes absolutely, if you know what you're doing this is never a problem. It never has been for me in the over 2 years I've been shooting on the MKII not to mention, I'm always the one who notices aliasing, not my clients.

A MKII with a VAF-5D2 is amazing.
Click to expand...

It's not fanboyism it's just a bloody nice camera....I've used a MKII exclusively for 3 years and now it's collecting dust.
 
squig said:
It's not fanboyism it's just a bloody nice camera....I've used a MKII exclusively for 3 years and now it's collecting dust.
Click to expand...
Ditto! I think existing 5D2 owners will particularly appreciate all the little improvements.

Yesterday I met up with a colleague to lend him my 5D3 to shoot a wedding tomorrow. He wants to buy one but here in the UK they are flying off the shelves & it is impossible to find one for sale you can only be put on the waiting list. He immediately saw the value of all the improvements as I was running him through all the nice new features that I already detailed above. The extra 2+ stops of low light capability make the 5D3 a really compelling upgrade for shooting weddings & other events.
 
Chris Santucci said:
I'm really confused by the overt fanboyism for the MKIII. I see these test clips posted shot on the MKIII with the OLPF removed and it looks like MKII footage.
Click to expand...
Please don't confuse those of us who actually own a 5D3 & think that it's a damn fine camera & good upgrade from the 5D2 with those non-owners who have this fantasy that removing the OLPF improves resolution. People have latched onto this nonsense on the basis of a couple of short test clips that as noted don't look any better than good 5D2 footage. It's then been whipped up into an Internet frenzy on a mixture of wishful thinking & conspiracy theory (Canon crippled the 5D3 to protect C300 sales). There is absolutely zero evidence that butchering the 5D3 in this way does anything other than turn your video pink.

Chris Santucci said:
Yeah, the MKIII has the low noise high sensitivity, but how many people even shoot in extreme low light anyway?
Click to expand...
All of us who shoot weddings & other events. It's not just the ability to shoot in situations that would be too dark for even the 5D2 but also to be able to stop down so that the DoF is not ridiculously thin.

Chris Santucci said:
A MKII with a VAF-5D2 is amazing.
Click to expand...
If you think that the a 5D2 with a VAF-5D2 is amazing then you will find the 5D3 is even better not least because you can use all the wide angle lenses & don't need to pop the filter in & out when switching between video & stills.
 
"If you think that the a 5D2 with a VAF-5D2 is amazing then you will find the 5D3 is even better not least because you can use all the wide angle lenses & don't need to pop the filter in & out when switching between video & stills."

This is a good point, but all things being equal, could, at 320 ISO, a 5d2 with the VAF filter equal the 5d3? Is the 5d2 possibly better? The reason I ask is that I rarely shoot at high ISO and so have wondered about just keeping the 5d2 for now and buying the VAF. My favorite lens on the 5d is our 28-85 zeiss and so I think that range would work with the filter. For what it's worth, I'm also strongly considering the D800 after some recent tests with the Ninja.
 
Last edited:
nigelbb said:
People have latched onto this nonsense on the basis of a couple of short test clips that as noted don't look any better than good 5D2 footage. It's then been whipped up into an Internet frenzy on a mixture of wishful thinking & conspiracy theory (Canon crippled the 5D3 to protect C300 sales). There is absolutely zero evidence that butchering the 5D3 in this way does anything other than turn your video pink.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. I'm always amused by these supposed homegrown major quality upgrades (like the GH bit rate hack, etc.)

nigelbb said:
All of us who shoot weddings & other events. It's not just the ability to shoot in situations that would be too dark for even the 5D2 but also to be able to stop down so that the DoF is not ridiculously thin.
Click to expand...

OK, I could see wedding use or some documentary stuff, but getting low noise footage in very low light still means you're not lighting and at the mercy of whatever light is available, which just may very well look awful. Yeah, you can shoot in low light, but what's it going to look like?

nigelbb said:
If you think that the a 5D2 with a VAF-5D2 is amazing then you will find the 5D3 is even better not least because you can use all the wide angle lenses & don't need to pop the filter in & out when switching between video & stills.
Click to expand...

I tested the MKIII and was unimpressed. I've already started telling my commercial clients that the MKII is a better camera. I guess it just comes down to what and how you shoot. I'd given up on the audio record function a while ago, I have no use for AF, and the footage softness is annoying.
 
Here you go:

https://vimeo.com/39552988 try this with a 5D2 (without a VAF-5D2)!
https://vimeo.com/39124220 tons of shots that are problematic with a 5D2. The VAF-5D2 has problems with wide angles: this video has many examples at 16mm.
https://vimeo.com/40200361 wide angle, distant detail (24mm), through a gen 1 FaderND (reported to be soft, though seems to work OK with the 24-105 F4L).

The 5D3 is sharper after post-sharpening and is almost entirely alias free. Low light as noted is also much better. Headphone out allows for easier run & gun (good enough audio quality if using a preamp). If budget limited the 5D2 is still excellent, and with a VAF-5D2 better handles aliasing. If not budget limited, the 5D3 produces higher quality images.
 
5D2 vs 5D3 (5D3 is clearly better: no (or very little) aliasing and higher resolution):

There is no case where the 5D2 is better (except cost).
 
Chris Santucci said:
OK, I could see wedding use or some documentary stuff, but getting low noise footage in very low light still means you're not lighting and at the mercy of whatever light is available, which just may very well look awful. Yeah, you can shoot in low light, but what's it going to look like?
Click to expand...

12800 ISO available light only

Tuwa.jpg
 
jcs said:
IPB?
Click to expand...

It's a jpeg still straight out of the camera and resized, no post....not video. Shot with a 90mm Leica summicron-r lens at around f/5.6-f/8 (aperture de-clicked). I didn't shoot motion at that location unfortunately. I've posted some fcp prores 5000 ISO screen grabs from another location earlier in this thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top