C100: Thinking of just getting a 5D III and saying the hell with it

nedcam

nedcam

Well-known member
This is more of a business topic rather than technical, but here's where I'm at. I was looking into the Sony FS7 or something 4K to keep up with the Joneses in my market, but after doing a lot of market research here's my thinking:

I had a very slow January so I started to research new local prospects, researched old clients to see what they were doing with video, competitors in my market (corporate, documentary) and also went over the last couple of years of lost bids to see what the final videos looked like, and here's my impression: Clients love that full frame look ala 5Dish. The corporate market is starting to look more like weddings videos.

I even saw very large budget commercial real estate videos with terrible aliasing in the bricks, seen bad noise, all the downsides of DSLRs but what they all had in common was that full frame look, the background really out of focus. They all had in common a little sliding, a little droning, a little stabilizer moves, a little time lapse, a little slow mo, second angle on interviews. My conclusion is the clients don't care about the downsides of DSLR and I'm sure this market isn't going 4K anytime soon. I also shoot for various TV shows but they dictate what model to use, so that part of my business doesn't come into consideration in terms of "next camera".

In sum, with a couple of years left before retiring, I think all-in-all, the shallow depth-of-field look of a full frame unit, along with my C100, is more than enough to satisfy the Marketing, PR, HR, Live Event and Fund Raising Documentary market, don't you? It's not as user friendly as a C100, 300, FS7, etc., but wow, I just keep seeing that full frame look doing my market research. I jumped from decades of using full size ENG cameras to a Panasonic AF100 then the C100 so I never experienced the 5D. I did buy a 70D to try to match the C100 for a second angle to little success.

If you are specializing in my areas of Marketing, PR, HR, Live Event and Fund Raising Documentary what do you think? Perhaps it's budget driven where the clients don't have the money to up the budget as we buy more expensive gear? So in effect, staying in the 5D capital expense range one can bid lower? Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Same here. In my market a full frame is a great tool to have. I have access to Alexa, Epic, F65 and so on, but I use the 5DmkIII a bunch. Especially in these limited space locations where they want the background out of focus. If I need a higher level of quality out of the shot I will use magic lantern raw.
 
Tough question...
I've certainly noticed the 'full-frame effect' on the A7s & 5D (never owned a 5D myself)..... Can really look great -> Depends on your clients and what makes the most sense for them.

I may be in a slightly different boat. I'm 30 and made the switch to full-time video 2.5 years ago (I was in web design previously). I just sold my C100 and picked up an FS7. The main difference is likely that I contract shoot for other companies far more than deliver to my own clients. There are a few marketing companies and production companies that hire contract shooters, so in that situation, they do factor in the equipment I'm using, so to some extent, it will help to 'stay up to date' gear-wise. I had to rent an FS7 4-5 times last year when those production companies wanted me to shoot in 4K (so they could reframe in post, only 1 was delivered in 4K).

For my actual clients, where I book the job, shoot, edit and deliver -> the ones I have likely won't even know that I've changed cameras. I image there are clients that will want to jump on the 4K bus... my clients aren't them (yet)
 
I have had a similar path from BetaSP / DVCAM full-size - HVX200 + 7D & T2i (I never enjoyed DSLR videography, I much prefer "real" cameras) + AF (as an aside I think the new FS5 is the new "AF200") + C100 + GH4 + HPX250 now AJ-PX270. Middle of last year went back to Sony for large sensor w/FS7+speedbooster=full frame with Canon glass. It was the right decision for me as the FS7 has not only improved my work but re-opened some doors as far as work lost from not having a "certain" camera. Owning all this stuff may seem nuts but I have sold off cameras for fair prices when the time was right including HVX200(A)/C100/HPX250. I still use all the remaining Panasonic gear for corporate / multi-cam so I don't want to get rid of them. I write all this to bring up the question of do you want to spend ~ $6000 more than 5D, hopefully bill a little more, maybe create some more work matching up with F5 guys, finish up with something more flexible than DSLR. Buy the FS7 and sell it if it doesn't make more money for you?
 
I no longer contract out to production companies, they consider me competition and besides, over the years they have gotten really cheap with freelancers. I think one's style of samples has more to do with getting an entire project rather than technical specs. What works against me is I have a zillion styles depending on what they want.

As Chappeldigital says they have no idea what camera you're using, they just know the final results. Yesterday I shot a fund raiser I'm producing for kids with a really bad disease, they had a party in a banquet room. They brought in three dark brown Shetland ponies so I had to crank the ISO to 2500, turn on my on-camera LED light. Obviously I see noise in the playback today but the clients will only see the kids' smiling faces.

I figure the FS7 full in will be around $10K and I'd want to charge a bit more, after all, this is a business. But looking over the last two years of estimates, both winning and losing, and then all my invoices, I don't think I can charge more nowadays. Also, the FS7 won't have that full frame mojo that I see after doing days of researching is the look du jour. In fact, it's been a few years since I had the time and inclination to do such heavy research as to what my market is doing and what the clients are looking (and settling) for. Content/Style is king, whereas we try to deliver the best technically perfecto image possible because that is our nature as cameramen.
 
I agree with your sentiment Ned. I have PX270s and a 5DMKIII with ML RAW. I prefer real cameras but have not found a justification to move away from the 5D yet. The CF cards for ML RAW are pretty cheap now and the image is great. I do not like 2nd system audio and you are limited to 1080p24 but for most lower paying stuff it is great. Sony FF might be a good option as well as you can us EF lenses with more framerate choices. The image coming out of the URSA has me interested in the 4.6k version which might lead me to purchase but from a business point of view, you can not beat the FF DSLRs.

Rates are going down and it makes no sense to have expensive cameras anymore. The Ursa is more of a purchase for me the user as it is more of a real camera and one I feel will last me many, many years. I do not like to use the 5D without RAW though. Just too soft...
 
I'm still hanging onto my 5D3. I've had a few clients request the camera specifically, even after I told them that I could give them a cleaner image with my C100.

Also, with the Magic Lantern hack, it's uniquely positioned in that it can give me H264 or raw clips. I wouldn't shoot in raw for interviews, but it's great for B-roll -- white balance in post, tweak exposure, and export clean ProRes 4444 or HQ files for your edit. I like the raw look so much that I don't think I'll ever sell the camera. I just don't know what else I could possibly want from an image.

And of course it's a killer stills camera. Lately I'm being asked to grab stills of what I'm shooting, so I'm glad that I have it.

Bottom line: despite it's age, it covers several bases and is definitely a good camera to keep around.
 
gkantziper said:
... Middle of last year went back to Sony for large sensor w/FS7+speedbooster=full frame with Canon glass...
Click to expand...
People seemed to have glossed over this point.

As to 4K, I'd think that, with all the 4K TV's flying out of the electronics stores, the desire to see 4K delivery will be there sooner rather than later, especially in big population centers like Chicago (+ LA + NYC + Boston +). Markets like Milwaukee will probably take a while longer.

PS. The NAB is also right around the corner. If one's pondering a brand new camera - and there are plenty of used 5D MKIII's and A7S bodies around - a wait-and-see approach might be the best move yet.
 
I feel better now about my 5D3........ I loved all these posts like about a year or so ago when everyone was throwing a fit about Canon all ran out to buy GH4's ....... Ha ha! I never jumped on the bandwagon........ Now you can pick up a GH4 for $800. Never really warmed up to the small sensor 4K image.

BTW, I'm selling my 5D3 for $7500 if anyone is interested.
 
There's a ton of 5D corporate videos for a few reasons. One, because before large sensor video cameras like the C100 came out it was THE go to camera for events and for budgets that couldn't afford a Red or film, along with the 7D. Two, the 5D is still owned by people who haven't upgraded, a.k.a., people who can't afford to upgrade because they're in the lower end market and aren't charging enough to justify getting a more expensive camera. Three, since it became such a household name a few years ago many people still buy it is their A-video camera simply because they aren't well-informed (researched) enough in regards to other better cameras (for video) that are out there in the marketplace at a similar or lower price point.

I personally think the full-frame (super shallow) look is often a bad look that came about from the 5D and a bunch of low end videographers who were so happy to get their hands on shallow depth of field, that they didn't know when to use it. I'm not saying it's always bad, just the majority of the time it is. Meanwhile, the DP's in Hollywood working on 100 milloin dollar budget movies, filming with cameras that are capable of shallow depth of field, use shallow depth of field sparingly because they know better, and know when to use it. Most of them don't approach a production thinking, "Shallow is 'cool' looking so we'll go with that." I mean, I see a lot of movies in theaters each year and most of them aren't super shallow depth of field. Some of them are.

For those who don't do photography, and don't do freelance (as some producers (who don't know any better) still like the "5D look"), I think the 5D is a terrible choice. The image quality is poor; it's really soft. For around the same price, an A7s, A7s II, ASr II, GH4, NX1, C100 Mark I, etc., are all significantly better cameras in terms of image quality. If you're stuck on wanting the "full-frame look," I'd get an A7s II. If you do photography professionally and only need a mediocre video camera, then the 5D may be a good choice.

You also have to ask yourself what market segment you want to aim for. Most $10,000-$30,000 productions aren't looking to be filmed on a 5D, simply because at that budget they can afford a better camera which will give a better end product. So if you're only aiming for the lower end, say $1000-$5,000 budgets, then you can likely get away with a 5D (not meaning you'd necessarily want to). I know while my company (non-freelance) clients often don't know anything about gear, they will often ask "How much does your camera cost?" as well as a video camera always looking more professional in a client's eyes than a DSLR, so having a more expensive professional camera makes you look (and likely be, in terms of being able to deliver better results) more professional and thus be more likely to be hired and hired at higher rates.

You also have to consider that those bids you lost out on which were then shot on a 5D, were perhaps shot at a significantly lower budget than what you had quoted, because it was shot by someone who could only afford to use their four year old 5D, someone who probably doesn't make as much income as you, and who regularly does jobs at prices which you wouldn't even consider working for. Everyone has to start somewhere, and starting out many can't afford better gear, don't have the client base to support the gear even if they had money to buy it, etc., but if you've already got better gear, already have a good client base, then going backward to a lower end client base just seems...backward.
 
I still get a ton of clients asking me to shoot wide open on the Canon 5D mark III. I think most shooters burned out on it a long time ago, but our clients are obviously going to be coming to it more slowly. It actually inspired me to write a blog post after I spent most of a week convincing two different producers to stop shooting on it.


Even if you're cheap, there's really no reason to choose the 5D3 anymore, other than fear of change on the part of producers.
 
I disagree about the A7s thing over the 5D mkIII.
As has been mentioned several times already in this thread - the viewers care about how the subject people look. They don't care about some moire on some bricks or some noise or whatever other artifacts.
The Canon color science of the 5D is almost the entire ballgame if you ask me. The A7s fixes all the little image flaws at THE EXPENSE of skin tones. How many threads on how many forums have their been about how the heck to get good skin tones with those A7 cameras. I personally won't shoot anything with people in it on the A7 stuff for just this reason. OF COURSE we know it "can be done"...but at too much of a cost in time and risk of poor results - hence the terrible resale prices of nearly new A7s compared to older 5D mkIIIs.
To sacrifice color science and overall look just to get more sharpness is, IMHO, crazy. I am utterly convinced that is NOT what viewers care about when SHOWN a choice.

Buying a 5D mkIII brand new right now today might not be the most forward thinking camera purchase - but the look is undeniably successful and well liked. And if that couple of grand comes back to you quickly then it doesn't even matter.
Plus, the stills aspect is still KILLER.
And Magic Lantern RAW on the 5D mkIII still beats the image off of ANY DSLR yet made.
 
The thing is, with color correction you can often get a camera to match pretty closely to what you want. I was able to match my GH2 color wise to my C100 pretty easily for the most part back when I was using that combo for two-camera interviews. Not a lot of work. I haven't edited A7s footage, though one of my co-workers has an A7s II, C100, and C300, and says he can match them well (he uses no profile, as opposed to S-log). With that said, there was no way I could ever get my 60D or the 5Ds I've used to match the sharpness of my C100 (aside from using RAW on the 5D I suppose, but who wants to deal with that workflow on a regular basis on professional shoots). Perhaps their colors would have matched the C100 easier than the GH2 did, but since the GH2 matched for sharpness much, much better, it was much easier to match the GH2 to the C100 than the 60D to the C100.

So for me, acceptable sharpness (I consider the 5D's sharpness as unacceptable) in a camera is more important than color because it's more difficult to significantly add sharpness than it is to match colors. Now if you're comparing say two cameras with acceptable sharpness, like say an A7s II to a C100, and for the sake of argument say the A7s II is just slightly sharper, but has significantly worse colors, then I'd go for the camera which has acceptable sharpness and good colors. Like I said, I don't consider the 5D's sharpness as acceptable. The A7s II's colors to me while perhaps not that great are at least acceptable.

I think a lot of consumers who are getting used to watching their latest Netflix favorite in sharp 1080p are getting to a point where they dislike dull 720p (which is about the resolution of a 5D); I know it always bugs me to have to watch 720p content when I'm just sitting back and watching a movie for fun because I really want to view it at 1080p which is significantly sharper. Then of course there are the people who watch content on their phone screens, at which point the difference probably is minimal at most. But chances are your videos are not just going out to phone screens.
 
IMO, A7RII s35 (15 MPX oversampled 4K) image is superb, its color rendering included. And it'll even work with Canon glass and it's better than 5D MKIII in low light to boot.
 
5D + ML RAW is the only acceptable choice for this camera imho. With Resolve being a fairly developed program these days, shooting RAW is quite easy. Outside of that it is a still camera that shoots some video.
 
I really believe that at one point in time more people used it for video...the 5D Mark II was so magical back in the day.
 
Thanks DLD, I didn't think of A7RII, that would also give me 4K. Must have a Metabones adapter for another $400, that would cause a crop factor, correct? But as I research it, seems the S model is for video and the R is more for stills? Go to 11:30 on this review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_jzBpXu6WQ

And if that isn't confusing enough I learned all I need from this one. Very depressing at the end. The kids with iPhones will make better videos than us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeNKT6svDEI

What got me thinking about all this is when I get a request to bid I often ask the clients to send me some links of videos that they would like their video to emulate, so I know if I am to bid on a Yugo, Chevy, Cadillac or Tesla. This is when they refuse to throw out a maximum figure. Invariably they send me what I feel is either a 5D or Black Magic, really shallow DoF. I originally didn't get into DSLR because I thought it would blow over but obviously I was wrong. And the Super 35 look is not the same. I do notice that 5D interview subjects' faces are mushy ,not crisp like a C100. See it in the eyes not being tack sharp.

Lastly, and why I am happen to be on my back nine, several prospects have asked when I give them a quote, "Does that include a drone?" Oh yes sir! Let me throw in more equipment you won't be paying extra for. What a business....
 
Last edited:
Regarding BM; the BMPC, URSA and URSA Mini are the only ones with a Super 35 sensor, not FF. The rest of the cameras have smaller sensors.

No matter what system, you can always get shallow DOF with fast and long lenses, but it will never be as easy as with a FF camera.
 
I get many calls for video with 5D III because of the look and because it has got enormous mind share. The 1DX files are sharper than the 5D III but the clients ask for 5D III. So even though gear heads here will trash the 5D III but it can give a lot of value to shooters/filmmakers who bid for complete projects.

There are clients who just want it cheap and I pass on those projects. Later I hear that most of those were picked up by people shooting with 5D III. So you can always offer a lower rate with 5D III and higher with C100 for some clients. Buying a used 5D III would be very helpful. And B&H runs lot of rebates and one can always pick up a 5D III with a good deal.
 
Hi Ned.

I moved on to an FS7 from a couple of C100s and a 5DIII, just over a year ago. There are still times when I miss the C100 - but I only miss the 5DIII for it's stills capabilities.

One other point nobody else has mentioned - if I was set on getting a 5D for video work, I'd most likely use the Mark II.

Mark II - moire/line skipping can be an issue, but image is crisper.
Mark III - looks like you're shooting through a plastic shopping bag. It's absolutely hamstrung by the OLPF.

Ben.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top