Wanting to get a new camera... can you help me figure it out?

Chris, I have no issue with your opinions but how could you watch both of the videos I posted and think the MKIII was not an improvement over the MKII? I don't think the MKII could have shot those videos at that level. After watching the piece on Africa I dug around to see which dedicated video camera they used for the video as I did not think the MKIII (or II) would be that capable. Found out it was all MKIII with Canon lenses.

Sure thing Nigel. Good point about the DOF.
 
Chris Santucci said:
To me, the biggest tradeoff between the two is *softer footage with less aliasing* Vs. *sharper footage with potentially more aliasing*.
Click to expand...

In a sense the above statement may be considered "true". But without the ambiguity of certain words used here, the reality is very different.


1) With 5D Mark 3, it's not about "less aliasing" - it's about (nearly) total elimination of this issue that has plagued all previously released Canon video DSLRs as well as all Nikon DSLRs.

2) Many people mistake perceived sharpness for actual sharpness, and no exception in the above statement. Think about this: a single image can look both sharp and soft, based on how it is sharpened or how it is displayed (or played) or how it is up or down sampled or who it is displayed to or all of this. What varies here is not the actual sharpness of the image, but its perceived sharpness. Video footage (or even still images, depending on actual settings in use) out of 5D Mark 3 may look soft, but that's just perceived sharpness. What really matters here is the actual resolution. Given the resolution cap of HD video, 5D3 resolves really well, even though it may look soft. That's why given optimal shooting conditions, 5D3 can deliver as sharp HD footage as any other DSLR camera can. Meanwhile, given the resolution cap of HD video, no DSLR can deliver more real sharpness. Certain HD footage from cheap pro-summer camcorders or GH2 may look real sharp. However, that does not necessarily translate into more resolving power. As far as 1080p (or 720p) footage is concerned, 5D3 is a fantastic capturing tool.

3) Due to prominent digital aliasing issues (regardless who cares or who has noticed them), a large part of perceived sharpness of HD footage from all DSLR cameras other than the ones that have solved the problem (either natively like 5D3 or with certain add-on filters) is faked in digital processing. This is another reason why sharp HD footage does not necessarily mean better solution. Thanks to lack of aliasing issues, footage from 5D3 can be very clean, even though it may be perceived to be soft.

4) In low light situations or super high ISO (12,800 or higher), HD footage from 5D3 is remarkably better than most other DSLRs (including aged 5D1 and 5D2) can deliver (even at relatively lower ISO). In these situations, 5D2 is not comparable to 5D3 at all: what 5D2 delivers is not "sharper" footage, but a sequence of barely usable noisy frames.


====

All in all, the only thing I don't like about my 5D3 is the repositioning and the new design of the magnify function:
- with older cameras, the thumb of my right hand is almost always on the magnify button, and I can keep pressing the button to zoom in further for more details.
- with 5D3, by default, the function is moved to the left side and I cannot press it without looking at the back of the camera. With 5d3, I can assign the function to the "set" button, but my right thumb cannot rest on it. Also, I am no longer able to keep pressing the button to zoom in further. To change the level of zoom, I have to use the dial wheel, which requires a lot more force than gently pushing a small button, causing the camera to shake.
 
henryqiu said:
2) Many people mistake perceived sharpness for actual sharpness, and no exception in the above statement. Think about this: a single image can look both sharp and soft, based on how it is sharpened or how it is displayed (or played) or how it is up or down sampled or who it is displayed to or all of this. What varies here is not the actual sharpness of the image, but its perceived sharpness.
Click to expand...


Can someone once and for all here answer me about the OLPF removal craze, or not? Why were MKIII users jumping onto the OLPF removal bandwagon right after it was released? Becauuuuuse... it made softer footage??? Than the MKII? That was the reason after all, wasn't it?


henryqiu said:
4) In low light situations or super high ISO (12,800 or higher), HD footage from 5D3 is remarkably better than most other DSLRs (including aged 5D1 and 5D2) can deliver (even at relatively lower ISO). In these situations, 5D2 is not comparable to 5D3 at all: what 5D2 delivers is not "sharper" footage, but a sequence of barely usable noisy frames.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. If I needed to shoot in near darkness, I'd be all over the MKIII.


Donald Ong said:
Are you honestly pitching us the idea that the mk2 is better than the mk3? I'm sorry, But the 3 beats the 2 in basically every aspect. Who cares if you need to sharpen in post? It looks far better than the 2 when you do. If you cannot accept having to spend a few more seconds putting it through post to sharpen, then that's just you. It doesn't mean the 2 is better
You keep saying you couldn't care less, if so, why are you commenting on nearly every 5dmk3 thread saying the 2 is better?
Click to expand...


Well... when a client tells me they want me to shoot on the MKIII instead of the MKII, then I'll buy one. That hasn't happened yet. The first call I get, asking about the MKIII - I'll order it. What also hasn't happened yet are clients telling me my work is substandard, and since I happen to prefer the control layout (including the older menus) of the MKII as well as the ability to have more in-camera sharpness right off the bat (I don't post everything I shoot - so who knows if the footage gets post-sharpened or not).

And what I "couldn't care less about" are the extra features Canon added. I don't use AF - ever. I don't want to post-sharpen, or have to tell a client that my footage needs to be sharpened :shocked:. And if the LCD screen is 3-5% better - seriously?


Yes, there are plenty of *pros* who don't have low light needs who feel that the MKII is still adequate.

Donald Ong said:
Yes, it was underwhelming, i admit, but you cannot honestly say it isn't better...
Click to expand...


It's definitely not better to me, especially with the ugly noise it makes around 35/45 IRE.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Chris, I have no issue with your opinions but how could you watch both of the videos I posted and think the MKIII was not an improvement over the MKII? I don't think the MKII could have shot those videos at that level. After watching the piece on Africa I dug around to see which dedicated video camera they used for the video as I did not think the MKIII (or II) would be that capable. Found out it was all MKIII with Canon lenses.
Click to expand...


I watched most of the Namibia piece and yeah, It's really nice. I may rent a MKIII for a weekend and do some tests.
 
There weren't that many 5DIII users who tore apart their cameras to remove the OLPF. There were a few noted cases and a fair bit of related commentary. However, from my recollection, that talk died down very quickly once people realized that a little post-sharpening was all that was needed.

I do agree with Chris (Santucci) that the III is softer than the II. I owned two II's and now own two III's.

Yet, I also agree with Chris (Dusty) and others that the III is WAY better than the II. Was it underwhelming? I guess, depending on what one was expecting. It might totally depend on your uses but I utilize three massive improvements every single day:
1. Much cleaner footage at higher ISOs. It's not about shooting in no light. It's about having more options when the light is less than ideal or when no artificial lighting is available (admittedly, this comes into play more in my personal work than professional work. I simply don't carry lights around with me when I go to the beach with my family or whatever). I don't have to shoot at 2.8 anymore. In fact, I almost never shoot less than f4 with the 5DIII. I just bump up the ISO and don't think twice!
2. AF system is significantly better: faster and more AF points. This is more useful -- OK, only useful -- for photography but this is huge if you swing both ways.
3. Basically NO aliasing or moire. Like many others, I dreaded interviews with the 5DII. I once had to tell a client to change his tie because it looked so bad. Embarrassing! Not an issue with the 5DIII.
 
Chris Santucci said:
I watched most of the Namibia piece and yeah, It's really nice. I may rent a MKIII for a weekend and do some tests.
Click to expand...
Chris,
The reason none of your clients don't request the Mk3 is because most of them don't know it exists. The other day an ad agency called me because I was on a stills shoot and was doing some video of the shoot as well. So my client had the ad agency call in so we could collaborate with a video they had done and what I was doing. She asked if I was shooting on Canon Hdslrs. I told her I was using the Mk3 on the project and she said "There's a Canon 5d Mark III"? See it's been 3 years of the Mk2 and that is what they know (most of them). If I mention Gh2 they say GHwhat. Say Nikon D800 and they say "is that like the 5d Mark II". I shot for the series Dexter for the Showtime promo and they requested Mk2 (hence my avatar). It was green screen work and I told them I'd use the Af100 to recorder for better keying. They demanded the Mk2 just because it was hip. The Canon 5d Mark II is synonymous with Dslr shooting. Lot's of agencies have little idea that the Mk3 is out.

I think you should go rent the Mk3. I think you should give it another run and add just a bit of post sharpening. For me, I use in cam sharpen on 1 click from zero and finish in FCPX using Tonalizer from here: http://irudis.com/Products/TonalizerVFXPRO.aspx

It's just a better camera, Chris.
 
Chris Santucci said:
I really don't need to prove anything, but when I see (mostly anonymous posters) posting BS about the MKIII being "far superior," after I chuckle a little, if I'm bored enough, I'll throw my 2 cents into the mix.
Click to expand...

The only B.S. I'm seeing is someone trying to convince themselves that they don't need to upgrade because their last generation hardware is "better".
 
Oh, but Gary, it's still a requirement that you use sticks with the 5DIII so he does have a point ;)

Note to everyone else. I'm am very gently poking fun of Gary and myself based on another thread we went back and forth on recently! I'm joking! Or as Kholi would say :) :) :)
 
Dave © said:
There weren't that many 5DIII users who tore apart their cameras to remove the OLPF. There were a few noted cases and a fair bit of related commentary. However, from my recollection, that talk died down very quickly once people realized that a little post-sharpening was all that was needed.
Click to expand...
The claim that removing the OLPF on the 5D3 improves the image is an urban myth. I heard of just three people that removed the OLPF. James Miller who got great publicity for the stunt by providing a tutorial on how to do it published on Philip Bloom's website. Following his lead Andrew over a EOSHD did it himself & there was a guy on this forum who got www.maxmax.com to do the job professionally. Everybody whooped themselves up into a frenzy because they thought they saw an improvement in the image but as I pointed out frequently on this & other forums there were no proper comparisons & the 'sharper' images were no better then other 5D2/5D3 images. James Miller still claims that there is about a 5% increase in sharpness (not resolution). Andrew paid Canon to put the OLPF back. I always said that it was the equivalent of using a green magic marker to improve the audio on CDs but got shouted down by those who had convinced themselves that this was a bright idea & even that Canon had deliberately softened the 5D3 image to preserve C300 sales! Regarding 5D3 OLPF removal I always said that the Emperor had no clothes it was just the wishful thinking of others that propagated this myth.

Dave © said:
I do agree with Chris (Santucci) that the III is softer than the II. I owned two II's and now own two III's.
Click to expand...
For goodness sake. The 5D3 is not softer than the 5D2. What you see on the 5D2 is aliasing i.e. false detail The resolution is no higher.
 
Gary Huff said:
The only B.S. I'm seeing is someone trying to convince themselves that they don't need to upgrade because their last generation hardware is "better".
Click to expand...


"Convince myself?" Why would I need to do that? I had the MKIII for 3 days and was turned off (as I mentioned) by ugly noise in one particular tonal range.

See these? These were shot on my MKII gear and nobody can say they'd be better if shot on a MKIII:

http://vimeo.com/48633774
http://vimeo.com/48633775
http://vimeo.com/48968984
http://vzaar.com/videos/1098673
 
Last edited:
Chris Santucci said:
See these? These were shot on my MKII gear and nobody can say they'd be better if shot on a MKIII.
Click to expand...

Rhea Anna did a nice job on those first three spots. Helps that all the patterns that would cause an issue were kept out of focus (if there were no post fixes applied to fix image issues of course)...but therein lies the rub. What if you wanted to show some of those crazy patterns in focus? Out of focus can't save your butt every time. What if major post processing had to be done to fix image issues? Sometimes there's no money/time for that. And if I had a nickle for every person who showed up on a Canon DSLR shoot wearing something that was problematic after being giving explicit instructions on what to avoid...well, I'd have a darn lot of nickles!

No one has said that you can't shoot something nice with the 5D2...what you're saying is that it's "better" than the III, which is utter b.s. It may not resolve anymore, but it doesn't have the major issues that can kill your image and it responds better to post sharpening, in addition to a myriad of other features.

If you didn't feel that the 5D3 was worth the money, just say so, but don't come on here and try to put forth the argument that the 5D2 has a better image than the 5D3 because that's demonstrably false. At worst it's the same, and when the situation requires an object in focus that the Mark II would choke on, the Mark III can handle it.
 
Last edited:
Chris Santucci said:
"Convince myself?" Why would I need to do that? I had the MKIII for 3 days and was turned off (as I mentioned) by ugly noise in one particular tonal range.

See these? These were shot on my MKII gear and nobody can say they'd be better if shot on a MKIII:

http://vimeo.com/48633774
http://vimeo.com/48633775
http://vimeo.com/48968984
http://vzaar.com/videos/1098673
Click to expand...
ANd they wouldn't be worse either. Might have been better if you wanted some slo-mo in there with 720/60p. It's subjective Chris. If I had neither of the cameras but have worked with each, I would pick the Mk3 from what I'm seeing with the camera. Rent the camera. Test it again. Load up magic lantern. apply a touch of post sharpen. SHoot some fine fabrics and wide shots of brick walls or shingled rooftops. Shoot some fuzzy eyebrows. Maybe a pasta strainer. Then come back and defend your thoughts.
 
I second dustylense's suggestion of a pasta strainer test.

But I've been bitten with moire in a World War II uniform thanks to Canon DSLR. Something you would think would be safe to have in focus. Nope.
 
Gary Huff said:
I second dustylense's suggestion of a pasta strainer test.

But I've been bitten with moire in a World War II uniform thanks to Canon DSLR. Something you would think would be safe to have in focus. Nope.
Click to expand...
I've already done the pasta strainer and the Mk2 FAILED where as the MK3 passed. End of story. Eyebrows, textured sports jackets, bricks, moving water, power lines, car grills, the Mk3 handles them in a far superior way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top