# Thoughts on my first real shoot with the 5DIII



## Axilrod (Apr 24, 2012)

*Old Setup*
5DII - 14LII/16-35mm on tripod as static cam
5DII/7D- 35L/50L on Redrock Rig
5DII - 85L/135L on fluid head

This was my general setup for recording bands over the past year. Camera 3 ALWAYS looked significantly better than the others, as the 85/135 are amazingly sharp lenses and very detailed. When I only had the 16-35mm the static cam always looked like it was lacking a bit compared to the others, but the 14mm helped make it look much more consistent. Either way, cam 3 always stood out in terms of IQ. 

*New Setup*
5DIII - Zeiss 21 f/2.8 (Shot at f/2.8 entire time, ISO between 1250-1600)
5DIII - Zeiss 50 f/1.4 (Shot between f/2.0-f/2.8, ISO 640)
5DII - Zeiss 85 f/1.4 (Shot between f/2.0-f/2.5, ISO 320-640)

First off, I have to say that I dont know that I can ever go back to shooting video on Canon lenses after using Zeiss glass, more on that later. As for the 5DIII, I have to say it was an absolute joy to shoot with. I don't care if the 1080p signal has overlays, I can't tell you how much easier it is to pull focus with these cameras. I normally use the Zacuto EVF on the rig and for once I could just use my 5" Marshall and it was just fine (but never with the 5DII). 

Got home last night and started checking out the footage and was very, very pleased.. People complain about lack of detail with the 5DII/III, but it looks plenty sharp with no post-sharpening and it handles noise much much better than the 5DII. I think it's sharp enough that only a pixel-peeping gear-head would ever complain about the IQ of this thing. Sure the resolution could be better, but that doesn't mean it's unacceptable. The only time I could call footage from these cameras "muddy" is when shooting with absolutely no extra light in a low-light situation, but hey what do you expect? Shooting with proper lighting makes all the difference in the world.

Here is the kicker, the static cam with the 5D3/21mm 2.8 @ ISO 1600 looked better than the 5D2/85 @ ISO 640 (which was always the money shot before)! This is the first time ever that the tight shot wasn't the absolute best, it was actually the least impressive of the 3. I think that says a lot about the 5DIII. It took a real shoot for me to truly see the difference..and I didn't have to look hard to see it. I was also very surprised by how well the internal mic picked up bands making that much noise. We are using $50k worth of audio equipment, so it wouldn't work for my situation, but I can see it being usable in some cases.

As for the Zeiss lenses, the things are just amazing. They are very sharp edge to edge and do very well with fine detail, the focus rings are smooth as butter, they breathe much less than the Canon lenses. They are built like tanks and the sound and feel of the lens hood locking into place feels awesome for some reason. The throw of the focus rings is just superb, and having hard stops at infinity and macro makes all the difference in the world. Color rendition is absolutely amazing and the footage looks superb straight out of the camera. Minimal color correction required, I spent probably 1/4 of the time I normally do with Canon lenses. Anyways, after shooting with these guys there is absolutely no way I could recommend a video shooter buy any L lenses (unless they need something longer than 100mm or shoot lots of stills and need AF). I really wish I had just bought them in the first place, as I am pretty attached to my L glass and am having trouble bringing myself to get rid of them. 

In short, 2 thumbs up for the 5DIII and same for Zeiss glass.


Edit: I will post the videos as soon as I get clean audio from the engineer and the videos get approved for release.


----------



## tomsop (Apr 24, 2012)

Thanks for sharing - would love to see a link to a sample video but I understand if you just wanted to post your impressions.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 24, 2012)

tomsop said:


> Thanks for sharing - would love to see a link to a sample video but I understand if you just wanted to post your impressions.



Duh I totally forgot to mention that, I am still waiting on the audio from the engineer and it has to be approved by a few people before it's made public, but I will definitely share it as soon as I'm allowed to.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 25, 2012)

> First off, I have to say that I dont know that I can ever go back to shooting video on Canon lenses after using Zeiss glass, more on that later



yup. you have a SWEEET setup with that zeiss glass. no offense to the so called "L" division at canon but Zeiss glass is in a league of its own in both build quality and image quality. They are totally worth the premium because you get something that looks like the work of a skilled craftsman instead of the cheap mass produced feeling from canon lenses.

the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit-R is also amazing. it makes the canon equivalent look like a joke in comparison.

congrats on the upgrade but the mkIII has poor video resolution which is a shame for the zeiss glass is not being made justice.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on a 5D mark III.

I'll have to start with the kit lens, and likely the canon 85mm 1.8....that's about the best bang for my buck starting out.

However, after I pay that off those few thousands, I'd like to maybe save to get some Zeiss glass. I'd like to get one for shooting video myself, what would you recommend out there for the first high end purchase like this?

If possible, I'd like to start with something great for video AND stills, but I'd lean towards the video end for the first lens.

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Apr 25, 2012)

psolberg said:


> yup. you have a SWEEET setup with that zeiss glass. no offense to the so called "L" division at canon but Zeiss glass is in a league of its own in both build quality and image quality. They are totally worth the premium because you get something that looks like the work of a skilled craftsman instead of the cheap mass produced feeling from canon lenses.



What premium? I thought the L glass was twice as expensive too?


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 25, 2012)

cayenne said:


> I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on a 5D mark III.
> 
> I'll have to start with the kit lens, and likely the canon 85mm 1.8....that's about the best bang for my buck starting out.
> 
> ...



I'd say go for the 50mm f/1.4, it's the cheapest ZE lens they make ($725, $550-$650 used) and I was very happy with it's performance (and I own/love my 50L). The 85mm is awesome but somewhat limiting if you're only going to have a few lenses, with a 50mm you can do all kinds of stuff, much more versatile.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 25, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Congrats on the upgrade but the mkIII has poor video resolution which is a shame for the zeiss glass is not being made justice.



Poor resolution? Compared to what? I think it looks great, definitely better than the Mark II (and people were freaking out about how amazing the Mark II video just a few years ago). Relativity is a bitch, people take the best footage they've ever seen regardless of how much the camera cost and set a baseline in their head, then every camera that isn't that good suddenly has "poor resolution."


----------



## Northstar (Apr 25, 2012)

congrats on your 5d3, I like mine too. question though, why do you like the zeiss lenses so much? i ask because when i read the lens review sites, they rank the zeiss lenses as equal to or less than canon or nikon glass. 

also, where did the canon 135 go? why wouldn't you keep using it on the new set up? some would say it's the best lens you own.

don't take my questions the wrong way, i'm just trying to learn more and you obviously have significant experience/knowledge, so i'm pick'n your brain a bit, that's all...


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 25, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> What premium? I thought the L glass was twice as expensive too?



Well some of them are more expensive than their Canon counterparts, some are less. 

Zeiss 15mm - $3000 | Canon 14mm - $2300
Zeiss 21mm - $1843 | Canon 24L or 16-35L are both around $1600
Zeiss 35 f/2 - $1100/Zeiss 35 1.4 - $1843 | Canon 35L - $1450
Zeiss 50 f/1.4 - $725/Zeiss 50 f/2 - $1300 | Canon 50L - $1500
Zeiss 85 f/1.4 - $1283 | 85L - $2200
Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro - $1843 | Canon 100L Macro - $1000

But keep in mind that with the Zeiss glass there is no autofocus system, so I guess you could say that all the money is going towards the optics. I would say that my Canon counterparts are equally sharp to the Zeiss, but the excellent edge sharpness that the Zeiss offers makes them appear more sharp overall.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 25, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on a 5D mark III.
> ...



Thanks for the reply!!

Yeah, I was looking at that Zeiss 50mm. That does look to be the first one that is 'relatively' priced.

I'll likely bag that one after I pay off the initial purchase. I found my old Nikon FA film camera from years back. It has what is now a cheap, but I read decent 50mm lens on it. I figure with an adapter, I can use that for video on initial purchase....till I can afford the Zeiss.

Just curious...why do you say the 85mm is _limiting_? Can you expand on your thoughts on the 85mm?

Thank you,

cayenne


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Apr 25, 2012)

i rented a 5DmkIII for the week for a concert i was asked to shoot last weekend. I normally shoot with a canon 7D. i really didnt expect to see any drastic difference in performance from the 5D mkIII. 

after shooting with it for a week.. i can say its a VERY nice camera. Much Much better low light performance than my 7D. i really only started seeing real grain in images about ISO 6400 but the images were very workable and usable. The concert was in a hole in the wall bar with terrible lighting. I used prime lenses, 24f1.4 50f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 all focused incredibly fast and accurately. 

i've shot many concerts like this with my 7D. the 5D mk III seems to focus faster and i seem to have gotten more in focus shots when the band was on the move than i normally get with my 7D. 

the interface is very close to the 7D only real change/annoyance is they moved the Q button and the zoom button . after a little time, i adjusted and everything was fine. 

overall i'm incredibly pleased with the camera.. will i buy one? no i cant justify the price over my 7D.. but for 150.00 to rent for a week, its def worth another rent. 

Darrell


----------



## cayenne (Apr 26, 2012)

darrellrhodesmiller said:


> i rented a 5DmkIII for the week for a concert i was asked to shoot last weekend. I normally shoot with a canon 7D. i really didnt expect to see any drastic difference in performance from the 5D mkIII.
> 
> after shooting with it for a week.. i can say its a VERY nice camera. Much Much better low light performance than my 7D. i really only started seeing real grain in images about ISO 6400 but the images were very workable and usable. The concert was in a hole in the wall bar with terrible lighting. I used prime lenses, 24f1.4 50f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 all focused incredibly fast and accurately.
> 
> ...



Darrell, 

Were these Canon lenses you used that you mentioned or another brand?

TIA,

cayenne


----------



## psolberg (Apr 26, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Congrats on the upgrade but the mkIII has poor video resolution which is a shame for the zeiss glass is not being made justice.
> ...



compared to true 1080p footage. you got some reading to do:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii

the mkIII is very soft even among other DSLRs. removing the OLP helps a little but still trails in detail and definitively doesn't deliver anywhere close to the quality of true 1080p. Sorry but for 3500 dollars, it should do better.


----------



## Christian_Stella (Apr 27, 2012)

Northstar said:


> congrats on your 5d3, I like mine too. question though, why do you like the zeiss lenses so much? i ask because when i read the lens review sites, they rank the zeiss lenses as equal to or less than canon or nikon glass.
> 
> also, where did the canon 135 go? why wouldn't you keep using it on the new set up? some would say it's the best lens you own.
> 
> don't take my questions the wrong way, i'm just trying to learn more and you obviously have significant experience/knowledge, so i'm pick'n your brain a bit, that's all...



Though, I'm not the original poster, I agree with him completely. 

The Zeiss lenses are corner to corner sharp on full frame cameras. But for video, it is their focusing ring that truly shines. I was extremely loyal to Canon lenses but thankfully rented the Zeiss 21mm to shoot a film. After using the Zeiss, I loved it so much that I sold the incredible Canon TS-E 90mm to buy a Zeiss 35mm f2. 

I did reshoots for the movie on the 35mm Zeiss and everyone has noticed that the footage is even better than the 21mm.

I still use Canon L lenses for photography when I'm not locked down on a tripod, as the manual focus of the Zeiss pretty much negates its sharpness for walkaround photography. But for video, I'm grabbing my Zeiss 35 or renting another Zeiss.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 27, 2012)

Northstar said:


> congrats on your 5d3, I like mine too. question though, why do you like the zeiss lenses so much? i ask because when i read the lens review sites, they rank the zeiss lenses as equal to or less than canon or nikon glass.
> 
> also, where did the canon 135 go? why wouldn't you keep using it on the new set up? some would say it's the best lens you own.
> 
> don't take my questions the wrong way, i'm just trying to learn more and you obviously have significant experience/knowledge, so i'm pick'n your brain a bit, that's all...



Well since I was shooting with Zeiss glass for the first time I didn't want to throw Canon lenses into the mix. The Zeiss lenses have their own look and throwing one Canon lens into the mix would have required more color correction. 

Aside from trying to stick to the same brand, we were in a pretty tight space and the the 85 made a lot more sense for the situation (the 135 would have been too long). But there were plenty of cases when I was using all Canon glass that I used the 85 over the 135 and was never disappointed with the resuts, they are pretty equal in terms of sharpness. I love the 135, it's an awesome lens and one of the few I plan on keeping after I switch over to Zeiss. The Zeiss lenses are awesome and I wrote my reasons in the last paragraph of the first post.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 27, 2012)

cayenne said:


> Thanks for the reply!!
> 
> Yeah, I was looking at that Zeiss 50mm. That does look to be the first one that is 'relatively' priced.
> 
> ...



I would say that 85mm is limiting if it was the only lens that you had, since it is fairly tight and considered more of a portrait focal length. It's still a great, awesome lens, I would just always get a 50mm first since you can do so much more with it. With the 85mm you would find yourself having to back up pretty far from the subject to get certain framing, but with the 50 not so much. Either one is great, but if I had to get one before the other it would be the 50mm, that's just a "standard" focal length. Not quite wide but not quite telephoto, just right.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 27, 2012)

psolberg said:


> compared to true 1080p footage. you got some reading to do:
> http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii
> 
> the mkIII is very soft even among other DSLRs. removing the OLP helps a little but still trails in detail and definitively doesn't deliver anywhere close to the quality of true 1080p. Sorry but for 3500 dollars, it should do better.



I've read every single article on EOSHD, I've used the FS100, C300, played with the Scarlett, and sure the 5DIII may not resolve true 1080p but I still think the footage looks great. Yes it could look better, but I wouldn't call it "poor" ever. This is an example of what I would consider "poor quality": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yUi1SVPHwQ#

So sorry, I just can't put the 5DIII in the poor quality category, sure maybe "fair," "decent," or "not quite 1080p" category would be appropriate, but "poor?" Come on. 5DIII is better than 5DII, which would make the 5DII terribly poor, but if that was the case then no one would have ever noticed it and the DSLR revolution never would have happen, but as I remember that's not quite how things went down. 

And no one that watches the stuff I do is counting lines of resolution, they all think it looks amazing. You have to remember your audience usually isn't a bunch of pixel-peepers, and 99% of the time they just can't tell the difference. I still think it's a great camera for $3500, and the stills features more than make up for it's shortcomings on the video side. 

I have to ask, what exactly are you shooting that the 5DIII would ruin the quality of the content/story? The 5DII has been used on House, 24, commercials, award-winning movies, etc. James Cameron used it for personal projects, yet somehow it's not good enough for you? Content is king, and if a couple hundred lines of resolution are enough to ruin your project you probably have no business shooting video in the first place. At this stage it doesn't matter, you should be able to make an awesome movie with a 5DII or 5DIII, but I guess it's easier to tell yourself "if only I had an Alexa, then I could make the greatest movie ever!"


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 27, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> Though, I'm not the original poster, I agree with him completely.
> 
> The Zeiss lenses are corner to corner sharp on full frame cameras. But for video, it is their focusing ring that truly shines. I was extremely loyal to Canon lenses but thankfully rented the Zeiss 21mm to shoot a film. After using the Zeiss, I loved it so much that I sold the incredible Canon TS-E 90mm to buy a Zeiss 35mm f2.
> 
> ...



Ahhh that 21mm is the one I truly loved, such an amazing wide-angle lens. I've heard great things about the 35 f/2, it's an excellent lens especially considering the price and just as sharp as the 35L. The ZE 35 1.4 was not so impressive, showed a good bit of CA wide open and I didn't think the IQ was much better than the f/2. But yes they are just the best for video without a doubt. A lot of people don't realize that the CP.2's are just ZE's in a different housing. 

Have you used the ZE 100mm Makro yet? Ridiculously amazing, that's the sharpest of all of them. It's the only ZE lens with master prime optics (which are $22,000-$25,000/lens). Try it out, it's absolutely stunning.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 27, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Christian_Stella said:
> 
> 
> > Though, I'm not the original poster, I agree with him completely.
> ...



Axil....I've been looking at that 100 macro...are you referring to the L version or are you referring to the less expensive version? or both?


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 27, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Axil....I've been looking at that 100 macro...are you referring to the L version or are you referring to the less expensive version? or both?



Hey I was talking about the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro, although the Canon 100L Macro is an excellent lens and probably the only lens I regret selling. The Zeiss 100mm is absolutely stunning, some of the highest resolving power out there and creates almost a 3D like effect the way it separates the subject from the background. 

It's a tough choice, the Canon has AF, IS, and 1:1 magnification and costs 1/2 the price of the Zeiss, which has no AF or IS, and 1:2 magnification. But I think that has a lot to say about the optics of the Zeiss 100, the thing is just insane. 
If you can't bring yourself to pay that kind of $ for that focal length, you will absolutely be happy with the Canon 100L. It works great as a portrait lens as well as for Macro stuff and is the only Canon lens with the hybrid IS and it works beautifully, very fun lens.


----------

