Will the the 5dMKIII come close to c300?

Dynamic range is a very specific, quantifiable thing. The 5D mark ii has been tested properly, scientifically, by Robert Primes ASC and ProVideo Coalition and they've found between 10 and 11.2 stops of dynamic range, the discrepancy probably due to the 10 stops being determined before the flatter picture profiles were around. To suggest it has 8-9 at the most and that 11 is an urban myth and to back this up with feelings and subjective non scientific opinions is not helpful in my opinion. Or you are using a different definition of dynamic range based on how much you like the look of the noise and how the codec falls apart, which should be called something other than "dynamic range". The FS100 is rated by Abel Cine at 11.5 stops and the non SLOG F3 at 12, if you can find anyone out there with both who says the FS100/F3 has at least 3.5/4 stops more dynamic range than a 5D, I will eat my hat, that is a HUGE amount of light and is completely bonkers. 1 stop is a lot of light and stops aren't a linear scale.

Back to the C300 vs 5D3, it's too early to tell on lots of things but I imagine they would intercut well as Noel mentioned, similar DR, high iso and canon colours will help here, assuming that downres looks good on the 5D3, if not the resolution difference might be jarring as the C300 has a full 1080 lines of vertical resolution so looks nice and sharp, I don't think it would intercut well with 5D2 footage.
 
telecam said:
If you are on a budget, the 5D MKIII is a no brainer...
Click to expand...

It really depends on your work. On a budget the GH2 is a no-brainer. The 5DMKIII...I would have not bought a few years ago (went for the 7D instead of the MKII because of price!). For me they were always nice B-Cams but had so many limitations they were just too risky to use as A-cams. If the MKIII fixes aliasing and moire and has peaking and a few more features maybe, but for the price of it you almost get the FS100 or AF-100 now. And they are just better camcorders. And if you do run-gun only then something like the XF300 or Panasoncis HPX250 are so much easier to work with.

There are many tools to choose from and our line of work and budget decide it for you. T put the 5D and C300 in the same discussion is therefore almost silly, because if you think about the C300, because you can earn it back....THAT is a no brainer for a cameraman - or almost, because the F3 is there also.
But if your budget is in the 5.000 range the decision is tougher, because the choices are almost endless with Canon, Nikon, SOny and Panasonic and JVC....
 
tobyloc said:
To suggest it has 8-9 at the most and that 11 is an urban myth and to back this up with feelings and subjective non scientific opinions is not helpful in my opinion. Or you are using a different definition of dynamic range based on how much you like the look of the noise and how the codec falls apart, which should be called something other than "dynamic range".
Click to expand...

Well I said the scientific test might be correct, but when you watch it in real life it is just not there. Sorry, that´s my experience with 5D material (and 7D even worse). I like the image, but it is not en par with the F3 and C300, if you want to be flexible in the grade, is all I say.
 
There is a very real difference between captured and usable stops of dynamic range in any camera. Codec, SNR, processing and other elements play a large role in determining if the difference is large or small. To some degree, your own limits of acceptable performance help determine this, as well. While I don't doubt that the 5dII may be capable of capturing 11 stops, the usable range is probably closer to 9 or slightly less, in my experience. I actually find the usable DR of the 5dII to be quite similar to the XLH1, which had about 8 stops and some change of usable DR.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree "usable" is closer to 8 or 9 stops on the MK2. The Achilles heel being the highlights where things like cinestyle don't help as much as they do on the shadows end.
 
Digital always favors low over high. High belongs to film.

Agreeing with CP and Alpi (second time I guess), if you find more than 8 stops in a recorded video stream from a 5D let me see, cause that's amazing.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
I'd agree "usable" is closer to 8 or 9 stops on the MK2. The Achilles heel being the highlights where things like cinestyle don't help as much as they do on the shadows end.
Click to expand...

isn´t it funny: in 2009 we got shocked that we "can see in the darkness" with the 5D and 7D and ISO1600+1.4 lenses, and in 2012 we are still missing the highlights of film (unless you shoot Alexa).
I shoot a lot of snow/winterstuff. The 5D sucks at it. The HVX is still looking great on snow; it still has one of the nicer highlight roll-offs. So digital really can be a beast, because you don´t want to intercut a dialogue with a HVX and a 5D in a "low-light-dungeon-scene"...the HVX would make you puke...

Now we have ISO 12800 and still can´t decide who has better DR/REZ...haha....we are such nerds, all of us.
 
cowpunk52 said:
There is a very real difference between captured and usable stops of dynamic range in any camera. Codec, SNR, processing and other elements play a large roll in determining if the difference is large or small. To some degree, your own limits of acceptable performance help determine this, as well. While I don't doubt that the 5dII may be capable of capturing 11 stops, the usable range is probably closer to 9 or slightly less, in my experience. I actually find the usable DR of the 5dII to be quite similar to the XLH1, which had about 8 stops and some change of usable DR.
Click to expand...
I usually find any excuse to disagree with you, but you took the words right out of my mouth!

Mad love,
James
 
I've shot with both DSLRs and the C300, and there is just no comparison. Its' a different beast, it really is. Although I do love my 5D, ever since I shot with the C300 it is impossible to go back to the DSLR world.

Regarding Red, it is an excellent camera, but I just can't bring myself to like the way that camera handles highlights and strong contrast situations, well, it can't... just a simple white shirt on somebody becomes a problem. The highlight rolloff is nest to none. But everything else is fine. But shooting with a camera that can't read white without clipping, its just a big problem for me.

This is something I never saw on the C300, it handles any highlight at any given type of light, be it tungsten, halogen or even good old daylight. The color accuracy is also pretty amazing throughout the entire spectrum.

Right now I'm really loving what this little camera can do. Maybe Red's Dragon sensor will be able to improve all these issues in the future.
 
alpi69 said:
It shoots stills? Wow! ;-)

What might be the truth is this: when someone at Canon suggested to put Video into the MKII (because Nikon did it with the D90) he was considered a misguided nut in his company.....and we know the rest......
Click to expand...

actually, Nikons have had video of some sort, going back to around 2004. no doubt the hybridization will continue and the C300 is the first shot across the bow in that arena. But someone please explain to me WHY a camera like the C300 doesn't shoot stills like the digital Hassy?
 
Zephyrnoid said:
But someone please explain to me WHY a camera like the C300 doesn't shoot stills like the digital Hassy?
Click to expand...

Because it has a S35 (24.6 x 13.8mm) sized, 8 megapixel CMOS sensor specifically designed for broadcast-quality high resolution HD video capture capable of 60 frames per second. The cheapest digital Hasselblad, the $14k H4d, has a medium format (44.2 x 33.1mm) 31 megapixel CCD sensor that tops out at 1.2 seconds per capture, or about 42 frames per minute.

They are completely different tools designed for vastly different tasks.
 
Kholi said:
Alpi I agree with you on the DR. There's no damned way 5D is a usable 11.2 stops of DR in any real situation.

It is definitely in the range of 8-9, and that's being optimistic.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd say it's a solid 9. Perhaps the MK III can get 10. I'd say the C300 is more than 12; Canon themselves said to me they guarantee 12 but it's frequently tested higher. No one has yet to perform their own test (AbelCine is working in it) but I wouldn't be surprised if it charts above 12, or even closer to 14.

The 5D3 is a great camera for video. But Canon would be idiots to make a camera for $4000 that produces the same images as their $16000 camera. Close enough, but the C300 will still win in low light detail and dynamic range. The proof is in the grade.
 
Just made a quick test with the C300 and the 7D with an 24-105/4L. The 7D looks so good when on its own, but you can probably not intercut them well, because the DSLR is extremely soft in direct comparison. I did not do any DR tests, but guess the 1,5 extra stops will help the C300 ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top