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

There may be a slight highlight improvement of the 1D X over the MKIII but it's hard to tell since the clouds are completely different in each comparison.
 
Chris Santucci said:
There may be a slight highlight improvement of the 1D X over the MKIII but it's hard to tell since the clouds are completely different in each comparison.
Click to expand...

These are the differences- in my opinion, of course- that differentiate the best from the rest :) That kind of performance for a DSMC (still and motions camera) is still bang for the buck and a step above the Marks...
 
1DX is slightly "sharper" but DR and everything looks about the same, as in really no difference at least in video mode.

This is what you get when you pay for marginal upgrades concerning your profession. By that I mean the video upgrades are just marginal.

I imagine the 1DC or C100 would be the "step up" from the MARK II that would satisfy you, Chris. Maybe?

Thanks for sharing your tests and results.
 
Kholi said:
1DX is slightly "sharper" but DR and everything looks about the same, as in really no difference at least in video mode.

This is what you get when you pay for marginal upgrades concerning your profession. By that I mean the video upgrades are just marginal.

I imagine the 1DC or C100 would be the "step up" from the MARK II that would satisfy you, Chris. Maybe?

Thanks for sharing your tests and results.
Click to expand...


Yer welcome! And yeah, it appears that Canon is less interested in putting better video features into these HDSLR cameras for obvious reasons (so they can put them in video cameras that they can charge a lot more for - that happen to work better). Like everyone else using the MKII, I was expecting something else in a MKIII and it just didn't happen (at least not for my money). The MKIII is just sort of the same when you weigh the pluses and minuses against the MKII.

When it comes to full frame, the 1D X does not look like it makes footage that's better than the MKIII by over 2X the cost. Yeah, there's a difference there, but it appears to be pretty minute and I doubt my clients would ever notice in a million years. Not to mention, they are STILL asking for the 5D and definitely with no differentiation about MKII or MKIII.

I like the stuff coming out of the C300, but it's not full frame and I expect the C100 to be a better tool than the 7D, but then is it better by over 2X the cost??? I kind of don't see how that's possible. Will the C100 make footage that looks 200% better than what the 7D makes? :shocked: Will it be 200% easier to use?
 
Still going with this 5d mark II is better than III stuff? For me the difference in favor of 5d mark III was obvious. III is better allround. Lowlight massively improved. No aliasing, no moire. 720p that is actually usable. And that's basically a 300% upgrade already. 1DX looks to be exactly the same with a bit more aliasing. People who say it looks better are kidding themselves. There's maybe a minute difference in dynamic range. Minute.

Will the C100 make footage that looks 200% better than what the 7D makes?
Click to expand...


7D/5dmkII has horrible aliasing. So probably yeah, the C100 will. It might make a shot the 7D just can't.

But will the Sony F65 make 6500% better images than the 7d?
 
I like using my Canon 5d mark iii. But yesterday it "froze" during recording. I could not stop camera i had to remove battery to power off. I lost the whole clip. I hope new 1 D-C is made for VIDEO.
 
Chris Santucci said:
I spent a fair amount of time doing a series of tests today with the Canon 5DMKII and 5DMKIII with the help of my AC, Shannon Madden. The MKIII was rented from Lensrentals and both cameras had ALL in-camera enhancements disabled as well as both matched identically in all pertinent settings, also with audio disabled in both.


I only tested the IPB mode of the MKIII and the MKII was mostly tested only with the VAF-5D2 filter installed (I have the aliasing test shirt shot without the filter in the MKII and it's a mess of moire, as expected). Both cameras were set at 1920x1080/24fps with the "Neutral" picture setting with contrast all the way down, saturation and color tone in the middle.


I used the same lens (Canon L series 70-200 II) on both cameras, the same setups with the same lighting with the same exposure settings and in the same time period. I deviated from exposure consistency only once with the highlight handling test.


In a nutshell, here are my findings:


Sharpness - It appears to me that the MKII (with VAF-5D2) will match the MKIII apparently with one step more of sharpness given to the MKII. With both cameras set to +3 sharpness, the MKIII appears to have an edge compared to the MKII sans VAF-5D2 filter (from looking at the resolution chart).


Noise - Confirming my findings back in March, the MKIII makes more ugly banded noise than the MKII in a specific tonal range (about 30-40 IRE as far as I can tell). The MKII has noise in this tonal range, but it's not "clumpy" and is less apparent.


Dynamic range - The MKII appears to have 1/2 to 1 stop more range than the MKIII.


Highlight handling - The MKIII appears to definitely not handle highlights as well as the MKII. This is also apparent in the dynamic range test with a more dramatic difference shown between the first two exposures made at the highlight end of that series.

Aliasing - With the VAF-5D2 in the MKII, aliasing seems to be essentially the same as in the MKIII.


Other discoveries:


The MKIII appears to be slightly more light sensitive than the MKII.


The framing on the MKIII is more inaccurate than the MKII on the Y axis. That is, the MKIII image displayed on the camera's LCD screen while in Liveview mode is more inaccurate compared to the MKII (hence the inaccurate framing of the resolution chart which I didn't feel like reshooting).


The MKII footage appears to be more neutral in color (at least with the daylight white balance preset).


5DMKII tests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QldjcMwbKQ

5DMKIII tests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QTpOtVRUgs

MKII Vs. MKIII resolution (no VAF-5D2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xykvGsSrdlA
Click to expand...


Next time you do chart test you must pan camera left and right to get better test results. Static shots get you nowhere in video.
I low light mk2 is no match. Other things like latitude,skin tones, sharpnes is easily improved in matrix menu and other firmware from other suppliers. Just 50P for slo mo is worh the money.
 
avro said:
Next time you do chart test you must pan camera left and right to get better test results. Static shots get you nowhere in video.
I low light mk2 is no match. Other things like latitude,skin tones, sharpnes is easily improved in matrix menu and other firmware from other suppliers. Just 50P for slo mo is worh the money.
Click to expand...


I have no doubts that I wasn't doing the resolution test exactly right, but thanks. I just wanted a comparison. And yeah, improved aspects of image quality can be had, but again, I have a comparison here, that's all.
 
Chris Santucci said:
The framing on the MKIII is more inaccurate than the MKII on the Y axis. That is, the MKIII image displayed on the camera's LCD screen while in Liveview mode is more inaccurate compared to the MKII (hence the inaccurate framing of the resolution chart which I didn't feel like reshooting).
Click to expand...

Seriously? How inaccurate is the LCD?
 
Last edited:
See the arrows pointing to the top and to the bottom on the resolution chart? The framing on the Y axis of the MKIII was off by about the height of the arrow. As you can see on the resolution chart shots with the MKII, that framing was also off, but it's at least centered. I had to compensate quite a but to get the arrows positioned where they are on the MKIII.
 
Did you watch the video? There's more than charts on there. I know all I need to know at this point about what I set out to discover.
 
I know you were just kidding... so I am not really singling you out. It just got me thinking about the pros and cons of a major step up in investment on a camera body.
avro said:
GUYS,
just buy new 1D-C :-))......and You will have it ALL..
Click to expand...

DXO mark rates the 1D-X sensor at 11.8 stops dynamic range. That would mean the 1D-C is too. Also, the 1D-C is said to have identical 1080p image quality with the 1D-X. So, if the 5DmIII is getting over 10.5 stops in video mode, and the sharpness is so close, then is USD$9,000.00 worth the subtle improvements for a B-cam? You would have to need 24p 4k to justify it in my opinion. Of course there is crop and 50p/60p, as well. In this price range, everyone is smart enough to make their own decisions. I just think it an illogical step to go to a $12K investment recommendation for someone coming from a 5dmkII budget background.
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
So, if the 5DmIII is getting over 10.5 stops in video mode, and the sharpness is so close, then is USD$9,000.00 worth the subtle improvements for a B-cam? You would have to need 24p 4k to justify it in my opinion. Of course there is crop and 50p/60p, as well. In this price range, everyone is smart enough to make their own decisions. I just think it an illogical step to go to a $12K investment recommendation for someone coming from a 5dmkII budget background.
Click to expand...



"The 5D Mark II was able to record a dynamic range of just 11.9 Evs (f-stops), according to DxO, which is one reason why the sensor rated a middling overall score of 79."

"How did the Mark III fare in the DxO Labs test? A dynamic range of 11.7, actually a bit worse than the Mark II."


$12K for a 4K DSLR or $14K for a 4K Scarlet (with media, battery, reader, LCD)? For shooting footage, I think the choice is pretty clear and I don't know what Canon is thinking.
 
One is full frame, internally recording 4k. Sure, one is a RAW proprietary device, but still...

One is made for Cinema applications. The other is made to record the rest of the world. Do you understand how many people run around and shoot with a canon Dslr everyday and make money with it? You realize they buy lenses that cost a pretty penny, why wouldn't they buy a camera that cost a pretty penny? What happens when that 4k raw recorder becomes so efficient along with the development of the HDslr can connect to it, while recording HD 422 internally? It will come.

Every new camera gets beat up against another camera. It's getting quite old. Like there's only one shooting style or environment.... Psshhh..
 
For all the odd pricing to spec ratio Canon does, they still manage to find their niche. Head to head with specs, they are getting beat pretty bad right now, but once you start comparing feature sets... that's where Canon can get you a bit (no pun intended).

The C300, 1D-C, and C500 are good examples, and to somewhat lesser degree the 5dmk3 and C100 (for me).

The C300 is the only pro body, s35, true 1080p, 12 stop DR, nice colorimetry, broadcast ready internal codec, xlr audio, low-light champ, interchangeable lens, small body-good ergonomics camera available... anywhere. Can't get the same feature set from any other manufacturer.

The 1D-C, will be the only, shooting out of the box, 4K dslr in the world. To shoot compressed with a RED DSMC, you have to have an add-on.

The C500... the argument gets tougher here, but in the commercial and industrial world, I can see this playing well and moon-lighting as a cinema camera. You're getting a C300 that shoots 120fps, and has a 4k option with an add-on, which in the long run will give you a work horse, and potentially be cheaper than owning a 2k camera, and renting 4k on special projects. In one films worth of RED rental, you could come out ahead???
 
Last edited:
Canon is a unique company. They make nice products but they are stubborn. The 4K video from a DSLR is kind of strange feature to double the price around since all of the FF cameras have the reslution for 4K video. Canon really looks at market value rather than specs for its pricing and as James stated, finding a niche is their key. I still don't understand the C100 without 720p60 and only AVCHD though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top