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

Eric Coughlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sharpness is over rated
 
nedcam said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it's a mistake asking a client want they want.

Position yourself to sell quality images that tell their story well. Leave the IQ decisions up to you.
 
would folks urging the continued use of the canon 5dmk3 also put the canon 5dmk2 in the same category?

if not, is the 5dmk3 that substantial "better" than the 5dmk2?

thanks in advance.

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions/nyc
 
robfilms said:
would folks urging the continued use of the canon 5dmk3 also put the canon 5dmk2 in the same category?

if not, is the 5dmk3 that substantial "better" than the 5dmk2?

thanks in advance.

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions/nyc
Click to expand...

Well going through this thread one thing is sure. Everybody has an opinion and they all seem to vary. My thoughts take it or leave it... The MkIII is still a viable tool for shooting full frame video and stills, and in my opinion a step up from the MkII as it will reliably run ML raw. The perceved sharpness issue is not an issue to me as I have been sharpening and doing noise reduction in post to raw video since the original Red One M.

Your mileage may vary.
 
nedcam said:
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? ...
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Both A7S and A7RII are full frame cameras and would work with any dumb or smart adapter to Canon or Nikon glass. A7S/II are low light specialists but A7RII also does well in low light because it has a back-side-illuminated (BSI) sensor, whereas A7S/II does not.

A7RII has two 4K modes - one is oversampled from 15 MPX in s35, with substantial rolling shutter effect, not for the "Day at the Races"; the other is line binning 42 MPX full frame, which has less rolling shutter but suffers from the slight loss of resolution (off 4K, mind you).

Now, if Sony only put the A7RII sensor into the FS5 body and enabled a real 10-bit XAVC-I recording to the CFast cards and output via HDMI (A7RII is only 8-bit) ... well, then no one would buy FS7. And FS7 is a major cash cow for Sony. Which leaves is with a curious case of a $3,200 model having better specs than a $5,600 model. Would the 2016 NAB remedy the situation? Stay tuned.
 
After shooting on a C100 and Blackmagic Cinema for the past year or two, I could never go back to a Canon DSLR. The lack of detail and resolution is really quite astonishing when comparing it to newer cameras. I also think a full-frame sensor for video is a negative. Of all the sensor sizes I've used, I think s35 or similar have the best balance of getting nice DOF when needed but also being able to keep things in focus easily. I personally dislike the super shallow DOF look that was popular for a while.

The Canon C100 is the best all round camera I have ever owned. It covers such a huge range of projects. I've recently shot a property TV show, short narrative film, talking heads, music video, travel log. It's such a nice camera to use for both docu and more artistic endeavours.

I was admittedly a bit disappointed with the C100 on my first few jobs. I was using the Wide DR profile which is actually quite nasty. I added the NTtc1c colour profile and it completely transformed the image. There is so little noise at ISO 6400 and up it's crazy.

I have a Ninja Star on my C100, currently outputting ProRes LT and they are fantastic! Also with the top handle off, the C100 is tiny!

I owned a 5Dmk2 and loved it. Times have moved on and there much better options out there. That isn't to say DSLRs are trash but Canon DSLRs are far too crippled compared to things like the GH4 and A7s. Cameras that can shoot landscapes and big wides with actual detail.

I'd say get a C100 (plus a Ninja Star) for 90% of your work and a BM Pocket for more 'cinematic' stuff.
 
Last edited:
i might get a c100 soon...any guides for that cam like the barry green guides for pana cameras? im not worried about what buttons do what etc., more about pic profiles etc. most folks are all about c-log or wide dr but you guys are talking about nttc1c and other things ive barely heard of...is all that info around somewhere in one convenient place?
 
analog_addict said:
Try shooting landscapes for HDTV broadcast on a Canon DSLR.....
Click to expand...

To be honest most people wouldnt care, only guys here care. I agree about landscapes...... Yes you found the Achilles heel of the 5D3. But for portraits or interviews the 5d3 is magical smooth silky and rich. Trying shooting those kind shots on a gh4.
 
Here's a little comparison I did a while back between the FS7, C100, and 5D3 shooting raw (I think that this was before the first FS7 update that fixed the magenta cast):


I actually preferred what I got from both of the Canons compared to the Sony.
 
Last edited:
QuickHitRecord said:
Here's a little comparison I did a while back between the FS7, C100, and 5D3 shooting raw (I think that this was before the first FS7 update that fixed the magenta cast):


I actually preferred what I got from both of the Canons compared to the Sony.
Click to expand...

thanks for the link.

helpful.

5dmk3 looked better than i expected.

yes, it is a touch softer but it looks quite lovely. (imho;-)

how does the 5dmk3's look compare to the 5dmk2?

thanks in advance.

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions/nyc
 
I don't have access to a 5Dmk2 but it's supposed to offer a very nice raw image as well, though it can't record continuous 1080P and still has some issues with moire patterns.
 
jthabel said:
According to this CNBC article, the 5D III still gets a lot of love in the adult industry. That full-frame lovin'. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/20/porns-dirtiest-secret-what-everyone-gets-paid.html
Click to expand...

Back in the early 90's, I was working at a SF Valley electronics store. The top prosumer end was then a Canon X or L1 or something like that, Hi8, about $2,500 new. We carried a $15,000 Betacam too but only had a demo model left for $5,000 or so. A famed adult film director came into the store and ended up buying that piece with what was likely a 70-200mm lens. As he was loitering nearby, waiting for his transaction to be concluded, I pointed at the camera/lens combo and asked, "So, if I get one of these, I can be a big movie star too?" He looks back at me and, without skipping a beat, replies, "Eh, you need more than a big ... lens".
 
Eric Coughlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just sold my A7s. My old 5d iii did a better image (except in low light). It can also do raw which smokes the a7s.

Soft? Sure. Beautiful? Yes, way more interesting than the A7s especially with those little issues the A7s had (blue led light blooming, highlight aliasing, black lines over highlights)

And when you switch to RAW, it becomes a mini alexa.
 
Thanks for the video Quickhit. I think it shows that things are pretty much equal in today's camera world. All looked good in the end. Some looked pretty bad going in though! :) My opinion is that the 5D has a character which draws me in a bit more.

Tests like this make me always want the best codec with the most amount of color information possible. Lets face it, you have to bend any camera you use to get your look. The scimpy codecs will not give you this opportunity as much.
 
If I have a client that wants a FF look I just put the speedbooster onto my FS7 and get the same look in a superior camera. For my business the appeal of the FS7 is that it can be an everything camera for my clients. So far it covers all of my needs over the past year of ownership (along with renting it out a few times a month which is a bonus) and will cover all of my clients needs for the foreseeable future (providing VR doesn't take off). The reason I broke from the canon C series is that clients want overcranking. For many of my branded/corporate content highspeed is the new shallow DOF and in bigger demand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top