Should i buy Canon 5d Mark ii today or another camera?

egproductions said:
While true, the problem is that the difference in resolution is overrated, RAW is overrated, workflow is a nightmare, and the cards needed put the camera into another price range where you have other much better options.

As a guy that also has a strong background in stills, I've been waiting for video cameras to shoot RAW for years. Now that it's here, I'm a bit dissapionted. The biggest issue is logistical workflow in regards to file sizes and NLE support. Currently, it significantly slows down the process of producing work with very little benefit when compared to a strong codec with a good log color science.
Click to expand...

Again, to each ones' own.
When doing heavy color grading, RAW files are the best there is.
For those who are seeking the simplest post production workflow, h.264 (or MPEG2 files) are best suited.
For those who are seeking the most flexibility in color grading, RAW files are the best.
LOG files are in-between the above 2 options.
(Which is why there is no one answer and no one solution and no one choice that suites all).
 
egproductions said:
I'm sorry drdimento but I have to disagree. I've used and graded the 5D III plenty of footage over the years, I'm talking close to a thousand hours of footage. ...
Click to expand...

Understood. As far as hours, I wouldn't venture a guess at the hours I've used the 5D3 nor the 5D2 for video . . too much for sure. In fact, I avoid any DSLR for video. Don't like it including the footprint, the tools, and the whole situation. I much prefer a good quality pro video camera. My DSLR for video is strictly for effect that I can't get from a small imager video camera (1/3" or slightly larger compared to a 1"+ like that of a "full frame" DSLR.

But in closing, this whole "which is best" is often a matter of taste and ones opinion and from my perspective and experience the 5D3 is worthy of exploration as whatever it has that works, it does for this user. Cheers :-)
 
deleuze3 said:
Hi,
A while ago, i tested a canon 5d mark ii, i really thought it was incredible for photo and video.

Is there any other alternative these days ? Mirrorless cameras?
I thought of buying a canon mark iii but its a bit expensive for me. What about GH3 or others ?

Thanks in advance,
Julien
Click to expand...

Stick to your budget and wring the best out of whatever you have. I shoot with everything from Alexa XT / ArriRaw to 5Dm2's (h.264 and ML Raw). (I don't own an Alexa but I still own a couple of 5dm2's) If the 5dm3 is out of your budget then don't consider right it now- 6 months that may all change. Truth of the matter is, cameras have been good enough for years now. We've been mixing Alexa's (Prores), Red Epics and DSLR footage on regular broadcast shoots on a regular basis- for years. And I'm talking interviews, not just b-roll. At times post has to degrade the pro camera footage, BUT it's good enough for ESPN, 60 Minutes, VS and other networks, so with most work destined for the internet the CAMERA DOESN'T REALLY MATTER ANYMORE in terms of quality.

You get hired for your skills, not the gear you own, at least most of the time- if the producers have experience.

ML RAW workflow is now a breeze. Convert the footage to cDNG, import into Premiere 2015 CC and edit natively. Premiere now has the easiest color correction tools in my opinion- basically the ACR interface that can now handle all sorts of file formats. No transcoding needed- just export finished product to whatever codec needed/ installed in the system. You'll need a fast computer, but you'll need that anyway.

The 5DM3 is definitely easier to work with over the 5DM2. HOWEVER, if you've shot film in the past, you may prefer the image of the 5DM2 precisely because it's slightly degraded over the 5DM3. Some say more organic. To me the 5DM3 definitely looks more like HD video- that's not a bad thing, just different.

Consumer aesthetics are changing- the hangup over the "film look" is rapidly fading. What that means is- the camera doesn't matter that much anymore.

What YOU DO makes the image. So on the cheap: GH2 hacked. 5dm2 wth ML, RAW or H.264, NX1, GH4 (personally I don't like). If you don't need 4k there's the Sony F3. 5DM3, A7S and anything else that comes out moving forward.
 
klk said:
…
... So on the cheap: GH2 hacked. 5dm2 wth ML, RAW or H.264, NX1, GH4 (personally I don't like). If you don't need 4k there's the Sony F3. 5DM3, A7S and anything else that comes out moving forward.
Click to expand...

I wonder.
From what I've seen on the net, the colors of Canon DSLRs, especially skin tones, are natural and pleasing. On the other hand, the colors of Panasonic, Sony and Samsung DSLRs (or mirrorless cameras) look ugly to my eyes.
 
It's all in the eyes of the beholder. I prefer my tweaked-Sony skin tones to the out-of-the-box-Canon skin (which is a bit magenta sometimes).

In any case, what I came to say here is the following: as further proof that the camera matters a lot less than the hands using it, I recently commented on a YouTube video (this one) saying it looked great and asking what camera was used, because many shots looked really sharp on my TV, and the slow-motion was amazing, with some frames being almost frozen; I was expecting "NX1" or something like that, but the actual answer was... 6D. A camera that I've been laughing at since it came out, and which was actually shooting 720p60 in those slow-motion shots.

To be fair, I then watchet it again in my PC and could clearly see the softness and the artifacts from the 6D, but really, on my TV it all looked gorgeous.

I wouldn't change my a7S for a 6D, but on skilled hands it can look really, really good. We all knew that, this is just a reminder.
 
Joshua_G said:
Is it purely personal preference, or do you find the tweaked-Sony skin tones more natural?
Can you please post some links to videos with your tweaked-Sony skin tones?
Click to expand...

They are accurate, and I find them pleasing.

A couple of videos of mine to check them out:

this one has a lot of color work in post (heavy Colorista III for correction, Looks for grading)

this one has very minimal work in post (just some WB and brightness tweaks here and there, and a simple and not too strong Looks preset)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top