New 5D MarkIII, is this what we've been waiting for?

allupons said:
I actually am fairly upset at the leaked raw footage. While canon absolutely has sufficiently killed moire and aliasing, the amount of detail and resolution in that video is hardly any better than a 5dmk2, and nowhere near an fs100, c300, or even a gh2. I desperately wanted to update from my 7D, and I truly prefer canon for stills, but it is clear at this point to me that if it doesnt have their new "C" cinema branding (and likely price tag to match) it wont have a proper focus on great video.
Click to expand...

You pretty much summed up my thoughts and the thoughts of most of the 5Dmk2 owners I know. I've been following the release closely for work purchasing but just can't sit in a boardroom and justify the added expense when the 5Dmk2 are working just fine.
 
I still really don't get this obsession with resolution. It's a factor, and you need "enough" of it, but it's such a small part of what creates a "pleasing" image from a camera.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
I still really don't get this obsession with resolution. It's a factor, and you need "enough" of it, but it's such a small part of what creates a "pleasing" image from a camera.
Click to expand...
It's all subjective so really it's no use in trying to change someone's mind about it or vice versa. We can say "content is king" all day in these boards but you have to think you're talking to a bunch of camera geeks and not a general audience with no knowledge or a care in the world about cameras. If you have a choice between a more resolute image or a less resolute image wouldn't it be common sense to want one with more? I could see if the difference betweens canon dslrs and red, alexa, gh2, etc. were just a little incremental but imo the resolution between these cams are pretty night and day.
 
"f you have a choice between a more resolute image or a less resolute image wouldn't it be common sense to want one with more?"

With EVERY other factor (color, low light ability, highlight handling, DOF, workflow, etc....) being equal, well yeah, but all those other factors vary between cameras as well. Also, putting the GH2 in the same list as an Alexa is taken by me as a joke, whether intended as one or not.
 
The real "joke" here to me is that after so many years Canon has still failed to properly address this market of Video DSLR enthusiasts.
They put out the 5D MKIII as the end all be all? Well if that is the case I wound shake Canon's hand and say thanks for playing, you lost.
If you don't innovate then you will lose this market (and by this market I mean video, not photo obviously).
We can argue all day long about what the Canon 5DMKIII does or does not have image wise but the truth is it was not meant to be a hybrid DSLR.
I see Hybrid as the only way to go if you really and truly want to take this market.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Uh... ok, whatever you say.
Click to expand...

So you don't think the GH2 resolves more than the 5D? I'm confused on why you have such issue with that. Its not a slam on any camera but technical fact. Yes those cameras can't be compared on overall (all the parts you mentioned) quality but the way I read it the discussion was about Canon improving the 5D image resolution.
 
RatLabProductions said:
So you don't think the GH2 resolves more than the 5D? I'm confused on why you have such issue with that. Its not a slam on any camera but technical fact. Yes those cameras can't be compared on overall (all the parts you mentioned) quality but the way I read it the discussion was about Canon improving the 5D image resolution.
Click to expand...

It "resolves more", but to my taste, the overall aesthetics of the image are vastly inferior to even the MK2, much less the MK3, and comparing it's image to a RED or an Alexa is like saying "OK, so we have the Ferrari, the Lotus, and the Chevy Cruze they're all fuel injected". More resolution is good, but not at the cost of a video like oversharp look, baked in colors that aren't very appealing, and an undersized sensor. The 5D line doesn't compare that well with those cameras either. If we're going to compare it should be in the same price range zip code.
 
"The real "joke" here to me is that after so many years Canon has still failed to properly address this market of Video DSLR enthusiasts.
They put out the 5D MKIII as the end all be all?"

The Canons will continue to dominate the video DSLR world if for no other reason than name recognition. I like the GH2, for the price it's not a bad camera at all. Especially for event shooters, but I have tried to convince a couple people in the past few months they should take a hard look at it, they all bought Canons.

The MK3 wasn't put out as the "be all end all". It was put out as a nice step forward that addressed most (if not all) of the major issues people had with the MK2 (moire, aliasing, 12 minute limit, rolling shutter, etc...).
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
It "resolves more", but to my taste, the overall aesthetics of the image are vastly inferior to even the MK2, much less the MK3, and comparing it's image to a RED or an Alexa is like saying "OK, so we have the Ferrari, the Lotus, and the Chevy Cruze they're all fuel injected". More resolution is good, but not at the cost of a video like oversharp look, baked in colors that aren't very appealing, and an undersized sensor. The 5D line doesn't compare that well with those cameras either. If we're going to compare it should be in the same price range zip code.
Click to expand...

Well, it's cool that you have a taste, but what you're talking about right now? Mmnah. And I know it's wrong because I have the camera, owned a 5D MKII, and I shoot Epic.

There isn't a single thing that you've written about the GH2 that is accurate and yeah, it does compare to RED when RED isn't shooting 5K. From 2K~3K the GH2 is standing right there in definition (as Emanuel would put it), color, clarity, and nah it isn't "sharpened video look" if you aren't using panasonic glass.

I've seen them all first hand on a large screen, and there isn't a anything else that the 5D is doing video image-wise-- outside of a larger sensor aesthetic, that the GH2 Hack isn't doing and or doing better. Nothing.

This claim of latitude is straight-up BS, they have nearly the same amount of usable latitude in any given situation thanks to compression. This claim of highlight roll off is straight-up BS, the MKii can't put most of what the camera sees to a file. It's Extended Definition stretched to High. Take any crap image and try to stretch it to 1080 and highlights will OBVIOUSLY appear to roll off "better".

So yeah, the reason people are comparing it to RED is because it's getting up there.

The reason people keep resolution sacred is because FILM resolves a ton of detail. It isn't soft, it isn't mushy, it isn't blurry. Resolved detail affects EVERY aspect of an image, from usable stops of DR down to micro contrast, to color representation and saturation. Is it a curious thing that Canon footage skin is usually WAY off? Pasty? Flat?

More resolution might help?

Again, opinions are all well and good, but you're stating this as fact and, well, it isn't.
 
Last edited:
The reason I put Alexa and RED in the list was most of the time your decision to use a camera is going to be based on how resolved the image is. If you ask a crowd of people (who have no ties to cameras) what footage looks better between a 5d mark iii and a gh2 I bet they are mostly going to say the more sharper resolute image. Color can be manipulated in post.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Before we digressed....

Of the top ten things I wanted out of the MK3, higher resolution would be about 9th just above headphone jack.
Click to expand...

Your right higher rez on the 5DMk3 isn't in my top 5 fixes but it would be number 6 for me. I use my GH2 for higher rez less DOF stuff.

I think what really got my goat is that it is obvious that Canon could easily do better but choose to trickle it down. After 3 years I'd say we deserve better. Maybe there will be a mid priced (6K) baby C300 coming down the pipes to compete with the Sony FS100 or AF100 but as it stands now if I were to upgrade the current 5DMk2's I work with I would go with the FS100 not the 5Dmk3. In the end I see no reason to upgrade to the 5Dmk3 at this point. Definately would never pre-order till Canon stops being sneaky and releases full res examples of footage (which raises the cynic in me).
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point/attraction of DSLR video was cheap high quality cinematic images.
If its not cheap anymore then that sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it?
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
It "resolves more", but to my taste, the overall aesthetics of the image are vastly inferior to even the MK2, much less the MK3, and comparing it's image to a RED or an Alexa is like saying "OK, so we have the Ferrari, the Lotus, and the Chevy Cruze they're all fuel injected". More resolution is good, but not at the cost of a video like oversharp look, baked in colors that aren't very appealing, and an undersized sensor. The 5D line doesn't compare that well with those cameras either. If we're going to compare it should be in the same price range zip code.
Click to expand...

This is really not a compelling argument, it's just emotion subterfuge. The value of a camera, less and less has to do with its price tag.
 
Boncrek said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point/attraction of DSLR video was cheap high quality cinematic images.
If its not cheap anymore then that sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it?
Click to expand...

The video function in DSLRs was implemented so that news outlets could cut back on costs by sending out one journalist to get pictures and videos instead of two separated people. To be fair to Canon they don't have to care anything about our "cinema" use of the camera because they created a separate division for that now and these hybrid cameras will still fly off the shelves due to them doing what they are primarily made to do well: take great stills. You have to take your feelings out of the equation and realize you represent a minority community to them.
 
ectobuilder said:
Canon Executive "Best killer feature in the 5D Mark III? Headphone Jack!!!!" LOLS (Sarcasm)
Click to expand...

Maybe not a killer feature to everyone. But if you have to collect pro-quality sounds without a crew, you'll know how the lack of such a trivial feature can be so frustrating to certain people. And unlike the missing of many "nice to have" features such as flip screen, no headphone jack has no work around. For audio recording, this is equivalent to missing the view finder for still/video recording.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
The number one film in the US last week was shot on that accident.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this was directed at me or not but this is true and ironically it is the reason why everyone needs to stop complaining. The main issues everyone with a 5D mark ii was crying about have been fixed now so what is the problem? The lower res. didn't stop this movie so now you have an even cleaning image with less rolling shutter, better lowlight, reduced moire and aliasing, better compression, a headphone jack, and at least 720p 60p (heck no other cam around the same price range and below has 1080p 60p except the FS100, 5n and Nex-7 so I don't see why this is such a shock) In other words they didn't do anything to make the camera worse only improvements to a camera that some people have made masterpieces on so whats the gripe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top