Should i Sell my 5d Mark III for Sony Alpha 7s?

P

payal_choksi

Well-known member
Hi all,

as the question on my thread says, should i sell my 5d mark iii for sony alpha 7s? i mostly do video on my current 5d and though i love it, the new sony alpha 7s is touted to be the next big thing. it is very cheap compared to 5d mark iii almost half the price of 5d and is also full frame. so i was just thinking about making the switch.

pls put your views and advices,

regards,

:undecided
 
I have the a7s on preorder, but if you don't and you're not in a hurry, I'd suggest you wait till more info on the a7s comes out. It looks stellar, but it's just a week or two for final word on a lot of questions.
 
but if it is anything near to what it is supposed to be do you think it's gonna be a good choice to go for it over 5d mark III? well that is what we will know in a week or two as said by samuel. but as of now, what advantages 5d holds against sony?
 
If it's as good as as I want it to be, it's worlds ahead of the 5D3. But it may not be that good: I still need to see a proper DR comparison, a scientific RS test, and some samples to see if the 8-bit thing is really an issue.

The strong point of the 5D3 right now is the RAW thing with ML. The a7s should beat it in terms of DR, but there's a chance it won't, and if that's the case I'll fell let down.
(if you're not into the RAW workflow or into hacking your camera, the only area where the 5D3 will not be trounced by the a7s will probably be rolling shutter; but waiting a week or two won't hurt the vale of your 5D3 too much, the second-hand market is mostly photogs, and they won't care about how good the a7s video is; probably)
 
Last edited:
The main advantages of the 5D3 over A7s are it is tried and tested, clients know it's name, it's a more able stills camera and there are a myriad of lenses and other accessories available to kit it out. It may change in a few months, but currently there's no need to rush out and buy an A7s.
 
payal_choksi said:
Hi all,
very cheap compared to 5d mark iii almost half the price of 5d
Click to expand...

I don't understand this part at all?

They are basically about the same price new here in the US. The Sony A7S is $2,498 here. The 5D3 is about the same, up to about $2,700 for the body, depending on the sale. Or $3,200 with the 24-105 L that sells new for $600-$650.

The Sony will also require the Shogun external recorder to capture 4K, at an additional $2,000.

Were you thinking about the Panasonic GH4, at $1,700? That will shoot some 4K internally, although it is M4/3, not full frame.

If you aren't familiar with what the 5DIII with Magic Lantern Raw can do, you might check some comparison videos on Vimeo. Here is one comparing the G4 & 5DIII Raw:

http://vimeo.com/m/94057334

There has been some automation of the Raw process with ML in the past couple of months that makes the workflow easier.

Given that you have the 5DIII and would probably have to wait on the A7S anyway you might want to give Raw a try.

There is another test here to see how well Raw will cut in with 35mm film for a TV show:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...n-Vimeo-Compared-to-35-mm-Film-amp-Red-Dragon

There are some links to ML workflow posts in this thread that lay out the process:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?324301-RAW-record-time-on-6D

Good luck!
 
But also:
https://vimeo.com/98791150

And remember, the F3 with slog has 2 stops better DR than the C300 (here, from 10:00 onwards), which has better DR than the 5D3+RAW, which has a lot better DR than the 5D3+H.264.
But yes, if rolling shutter matters a lot to you, the a7s is probably not a good match.
 
There is much that remains to be seen. As far as I and many others are concerned the 5D3 is a known quantity with a very pleasing, some would say cinematic look. I just say that it looks good and leave it at that. No need for hype. I don't give a damn about specs, or what any given camera can do on paper, or what is the "cool guys" camera of the month here at DVXuser. I care about the images it creates and do they please me. Every time a new camera is released this place goes nuts and there will be a thread 1000 posts long about how great it is and it will get hyped to hell and back. You have people here bragging about pre-orders and such and drumming up support for this brand or that brand, whatever is the flavor of the month here. Well, you guys are getting played by clever marketing and gear lust. Hang back a bit and see if it is really all that or not, because most of the time the answer is not. But as I said, we will see soon.
 
I agree with Celluloid Dream. If I changed my camera every time something new came out I would be farther in debt then what I am already.

If I'm right BUT I CAN BE WRONG the 5d has been used for some major films unlike many other cameras out there in it price range. I haven't seen any films that has been release in the theaters that was either shot or used - using the FS100, FS700, AF100, Scarlet, BMC, C100 and I really doubt that we will see the Alpha 7s making that list of theater release films anytime soon but the Canon 5D has :-)

Captain America: The First Avenger
Iron Man II
Act of Valor
The Avengers

I know I'm missing some films here to add onto the list.
 
New_Zealand said:
II haven't seen any films that has been release in the theaters that was either shot or used - using the FS100, FS700, AF100, Scarlet, BMC, C100 and I really doubt that we will see the Alpha 7s making that list of theater release films anytime soon but the Canon 5D has :-)
Click to expand...

There have been movies released in theatres on Af100 (The Raid) and GH2 (Upstream Colour). I'm sure there are theatrical movies on the other cams I just don't know of them. I know the other cameras have gotten a lot of use in Television work.

Your bragging out the 5D3 being used as a crash cam in most of those movies. The shot lasts sub 2 sec and its used because the camera is cheap to destroy and has nicer image than a go pro. The A7s will be just as good and just as cheap along with Slog to match the log gammas of the bigger A cams. I could see it used in much the same way the 5D3 has been. Small crash cam.
 
The 5D2 was the best camera a few years ago if you could only pay <$5K or if you wanted a super small body. That's not the case anymore, and I wouldn't use a sub-par tool just because somebody else uses it too.
Don't get me wrong, the 5D3 is still a great tool and I'm not sure I would sell it if I already had one (the main topic in this thread), but "XYZ uses it" is not an argument that will convince me of anything (they reasons why he does, those may).
All the movies you listed used the 5D2, not the 5D3, but I would definitely choose the 5D3 over the 5D2.
 
Increased dynamic range is a priority, however rolling shutter is a dead give away for a DSLR and so far I am not convinced that anything has arrived in this category of cameras that has properly dealt with it.
 
For anybody caring a lot about RS, the 5D3 is a lot better than the a7s (from what we know so far)
 
I don't know whose idea it was that "sharp" is cinematic but it isn't.

Good bokeh, Monet, Mettise, Picasso - all not sharp. Good art strikes on the subconscious, dream state. Not sharp.

To my eye a lot of the GH4 footage looks "videoish" because of it's deeper depth of field and oversharp image.

Unless you're doing morgue videos or some kind of science project sharp is not where it's at.

I know the tendency is to get caught up in these tech wars but they really are quite silly. If you have a lot of EF glass I would wait until the next generation of camera body comes out. At some point (and I think we have already reached it) the differences in new gear don't merit a drastic change.
 
Steve Kahn said:
I don't know whose idea it was that "sharp" is cinematic but it isn't.

Good bokeh, Monet, Mettise, Picasso - all not sharp. Good art strikes on the subconscious, dream state. Not sharp.

To my eye a lot of the GH4 footage looks "videoish" because of it's deeper depth of field and oversharp image.

Unless you're doing morgue videos or some kind of science project sharp is not where it's at.

I know the tendency is to get caught up in these tech wars but they really are quite silly. If you have a lot of EF glass I would wait until the next generation of camera body comes out. At some point (and I think we have already reached it) the differences in new gear don't merit a drastic change.
Click to expand...

Blasphemy! How dare you question the increased resolution of the GH4?!?!
All kidding aside, I do agree with you to a point. The GH4 footage that I've seen has looked more like video to my eye, but how much of that is the camera operator? I know that a shallower DOF is possible on those cameras (harder than a FF camera with a cheap 50 1.4 lens of course), but is it really that hard to achieve? The next thing is the color science, and how much of that can be fixed with a good grade? How much of that sharpness can be dulled down a bit if they'd only be willing to give up a little sharpness. I really don't know, but for the sake of the GH4 fan club I hope it's just been a tendency in early footage tests to show how sharp it can be and not that everyone will keep those settings for real work.
I have a C100, and one of the things I love about it is that it's sharper than my 5D3 without looking like video straight out of the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top