# I just can't comprehend some of the negativity on the 5d3...



## Ponte506 (Mar 28, 2012)

I can promise you this isn't a complaint, I'm just thoroughly confused at what people who are looking for a way to make short films/documentaries/etc. have to worry about when it comes to the 5d Mk. III when we already have major production examples of its quality in both Hollywood and Television.

I am as new as they come in regards to DSLR's and pro-sumer cinematography, so perhaps I'm being severely naive, but if we already have proof of the pro quality that the 5DII was able to produce, what's with the "regretting this purchase" air that I'm seeing from so many people?

If any of the doubters have seen the "House M.D." episode "Help Me", it was entirely shot on the 5d *MKII* with Cannon Primes and a few zooms. Even while watching a sub-par quality rip on the internet of the episode, I could not believe how filmic the episode looked. They weren't using $3k Cine lenses, they weren't using some crazy PL rigged mounts; they were using relatively standard glass. On top of that, for anyone that's seen "Act of Valor" can also see a lot of the amazing footage the 5d2 was able to conjure up, most ALL of the first person helmet cam shots as well as a notable scene in which one of the main villains is observing a warehouse full of bomb-makers. 

I think a lot of people don't realize just how much post makes a difference. While I understand that House and Act of Valor were shot using studio lighting equipment (just like any major production), why is there so much flak being shot at the 5d3 when it's predecessor churned out filmic quality pieces that I described? Is that notion being completely ignored for the sake of comparing spreadsheets with sensor sizes, codecs, and other specs? It's almost as bad as the PC Overclocking community, disregarding well established products such as cooling radiators and water blocks just because something else came out that beats it by 1 degree Celsius. I'm relatively certain that everyone here can understand NO DSLR can match a $200k studio grade film camera, but once again, given produced examples there really should be nothing to complain about. Like I said, I'm pretty damn new to the DSLR market, but this is just my two cents. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## riogrande100 (Mar 28, 2012)

Agreed


----------



## psolberg (Mar 28, 2012)

As I said in another thread, we need to manage our expectations. What you say is correct but lets keep in mind a few things:

1) the 5DII had no competition so it was very easty to be the best at anything they did. This elevated its status beyond what its successor could achieve because there are now many alternatives and the market has opened in the high end with the REDs and sony FS100, C300 and others. The 5DIII simply can't repeat that success because the market has changed a lot. DSLR video is now a standard commodity and even affordable bodies like the GH2 + hack, will deliver quality video beyond what the 5DII/III do. 

2) At release, 5DmkII's shallow dof at an affordable price was seen as the next big thing, and it was. Today you have a lot of choices for dslr video, often delivering equal or better quality to the 5DII/III. That shallow DOF look is no longer considered revolutionary or unique just by itself. You can't just shoot footage and get the instant "wow" anymore just because it was shot @ f/1.8. More advanced codecs, true 1080p resolution, and overcrank is where the industry is going. Nobody is standing still. Given the 5D line is primarily a still camera, it is at a dissadvantage from the start to the dedicated gear we see today and we'll see in the next decade. The sun is setting on the HDSRL revolution and it is unrealistic to expect the 5DIII to change the world the way the mkII did.

3) Hollywood is moving on from clumsy dslrs to dedicated video cameras that offer the same benefits and better quality and features. Sure they cost more, but the budgets are there when you consider how much is to shoot with real film and panavision or ultra high end sony equipment. Canon, Red, Sony, all know this. It makes no sense for them to try to be jacks of all trades but masters of none. These companies are out to make the best video cameras possible. HDRLS desinged for wedding and sport shooting under $4K, just aren't going to be able to keep up.

In summary, the 5DIII remains a great camera and without doubt it is capable of a lot in the right hands. But that is the case with just about every camera these days and this means the 5DIII won't stand out as much. If the reason peple are negative is because they wanted to see another video revolution from a still camera, they will need to bring down their expectations a lot from now on.

Now, you can dissagree, but the 5DmkII glory days are beyind us and this is obvious in the reception to this new camera. The world is different. It is time to accept it and move on. 5DIII, D800, GH2, whatever.


----------



## Christian_Stella (Mar 28, 2012)

You definitely have to take the 5dIII smack talking with a grain of salt. 95% of these people counting the lines of resolution are not actually filming anything of substance with their camera to begin with. 

There was a movie called Silent House that just came out. As a movie, it's awful... But I saw it in theaters because it's probably the first wide release movie shot 100% on the 5d. It looked pretty amazing on the big screen, when it was in focus. Their focus puller was atrocious!

Then there's an indie movie called Tiny Furniture that's pretty great all around. It just came out Criterion Collection. 

With all cameras it is definitely about how you use them and with movies, no camera can save a bad story, bad acting, or bad sound. 

As someone who has spent an entire year working on a feature film (The Battery) shot on the 5d2, I can understand the resolution gripes. When so many people are working so hard on something for so long and you are in control of the picture, you really want it to look the best it can possibly look. When we shot last year, I really didn't have any other options, so I have no regrets. But I will have to think long and hard about whether I'm renting a C300 for the next movie. I will say though that our crew just got together and watched just a 720p sample output of our final cut without color grading on a 16 foot screen with DLP projection and it was awesome. 

When the 5d3 was announced, I made the decision that id rather be great at filming with the 5d than horrible shooting on the Red Scarlet as some people are tempted to jump to for resolution. I have been quite happy with my decision so far. Noise was my biggest problem with the 5d2 footage on my movie, so I am simply astounded by the leap that the 3 is in that respect. Not that the 2 was bad by any means in low light, it's just that we shot an entire movie in the woods away from electricity with no way to run a generator as it would have ruined the sound.


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Mar 28, 2012)

the nikon d700 and d800 are VERY different cameras than the 5dmkII and 5dmkIII. youre comparing apples to oranges. 

if you just look at the specs and compare yes.. nikon has some fancy numbers.. but give it a month.. 2 months.. and see how the real reviews and results come out. lets see what people can really do with these cameras.. lets see what system the real pro's get behind. 

both nikon and canon have amazing cameras out there. you couldnt go wrong with either. its just a tool.. if you think nikon is a better choice, go for it.. get the camera and start shooting.. ultimately.. thats what its all about.. at the end of the day i could care less what brand is on my camera.. or on your camera.. show me what you can do!


----------



## Christian_Stella (Mar 28, 2012)

dilbert said:


> So...
> 
> Look at the difference between the Nikon D700 and Nikon D800.
> 
> ...



Clearly it's because Canon's 2008 camera wasn't as deficient as Nikon's.

Having actually used the 5d3 for over a week now, it definitely does not feel like some small upgrade, but if people insist, let's meet back here in 3 years and discuss how the d900 is a small leap.


----------



## Ponte506 (Mar 28, 2012)

Some awesome replies, thank you for taking your time. In regards to the 5d mk. III not being as revolutionary as the 5d2, I completely agree. There are a lot of competitors now that can match it, and I'm sure we'll receive something that incorporates more advanced features a year....two years...five years from now. BUT, I can take complete satisfaction in the fact that there are tried and true examples of what we can accomplish with the 5d2 and ESPECIALLY with the 5d3 in Hollywood and TV already. I somewhat feel like a lot of people are bummed that they're not getting "Inception" and "Saving Private Ryan" filmic quality as soon as they plug their CF card into their computer and export it right off the bat by getting one over on Hollywood with their $3,000 still camera. Not gonna happen.


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 28, 2012)

dilbert said:


> So...
> 
> Look at the difference between the Nikon D700 and Nikon D800.
> 
> ...



Isn't the "Mark III" badge on the camera an indication that this is just an update of an existing camera, the "5D" and NOT a revolutionary new game changing camera?

It's JUST AN UPDATE!
NEW AF, improved FPS, latest processor, etc.

I don't understand why some people expected this camera to be anything different.

Now if it was a 2D or 3D, that would be a different story...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 28, 2012)

The 5DII and 5D III cameras are basically still cameras with video capability. For a very large increase in price, video makers were hoping to see some really big improvements in the cameras video capability. There are improvements, for sure, but not as much as many would want. Certainly no 4K video at that price.

I do not do video, but I do think Canon is planning to produce a video DSLR with still capabilities that will have a lot more professional video maker capabilities at a mid level $8-$10K price. It will not be at the D300 level though

That is not to say that the 5D MK III is useless for video, just that it was expected to have more features, like full resoultion output thru the HDMI jack.

If I were lookiing for a upgrade from 5D MK II to a better video capable camera for pro level work, I'd wait and see what is announced at NAB, or later this year.

But, since I only do stills, I am putting mine to work.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 29, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > So...
> ...



well, defficient, or different? Yes the D700 didn't do video, that bus came later. But it was VERY fast , even faster TODAY than the new 5DmkIII (D700 does 8fps at FULL frame with a grip) and it was a good 1 - 2 stops over high ISO performance over the 5DII thanks to its flagship D3 sensor and 100% pro level 51 point AF system, 3D focus tracking and even a 1000+ zone RGB metering sensor. This is all in 2008 mind you at a cost that is the same as today's camera. Deficient? I don't think so. So for the videographer it may have been obviously, but low light sports and actions photographers loved it and still do for where else can you do 8fps full frame for 2200 dollars with a pro level AF system and crazy high ISOs?

so I have to agree with the opinion that nikon had a much bigger leap to take and they took it. It seems canon was far more conservative. Then again nikon hasn't said the D800 replaces the D700 and it looks so different that they may have something in the wings, a D710 maybe? Surely times are going to be interesting this year.


----------



## peederj (Mar 29, 2012)

The resolution is the only disappointing thing I think. I have no need for clean HDMI out if the cam can conveniently record 1000+ line 1080p without macroblocking, noise, moire, etc. (Rolling shutter I am not terribly worried about, don't do many whip pans).

You can see in 10x live view what sort of resolution the sensor can do. And you get none of it. And the cam can stream 90mbps ALL-I. They give stills shooters different resolutions of JPEG, but they do not give video people their choice of resolutions (ALL-I and IPB are very similar looking and may only yield slight benefits for high-motion and low-motion shots respectively, the steady-state resolution and look is essentially the same). 

Canon break down and give us a superfine mode for video. IPB only I am fine with. Give us the potential of this sensor and this Digic5 which is way more than you are delivering now.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 5DII and 5D III cameras are basically still cameras with video capability. For a very large increase in price, video makers were hoping to see some really big improvements in the cameras video capability. There are improvements, for sure, but not as much as many would want. Certainly no 4K video at that price.
> 
> I do not do video, but I do think Canon is planning to produce a video DSLR with still capabilities that will have a lot more professional video maker capabilities at a mid level $8-$10K price. It will not be at the D300 level though
> 
> ...



i think people were surprised that after all of the 22MP 3x3 talk it ended up with more like 1280x720 levels of detail, that zebra striping and focus zoom while recording are missing, that they added all these new in cam audio features but apparently forgot to update the hissing internal audio amps even to D800-quality, where is the C300-like 2x2 cropped mode for true 1920x1080 sharpness if 3x3 won't allow for it? For 3.5 years it seems it should've had those basics. It does fix moire and aliasing at least and seems to do better at ISO3200+.

i haven't seen evidence myself yet, but some are claiming that somehow Nikon got sharper video out of the D800 than the 5D3 despite the 36MP


----------



## Christian_Stella (Mar 29, 2012)

From what I've seen in samples, the d800 is clearly sharper, but with worse moire and aliasing than even the 5d2. Noise looks comparable to the 5d2 but the 5d3 smokes them both. 

In the end it comes down to your choice of platform and your preference over resolved detail or less moire, less aliasing, and less noise. Neither is perfect, but neither is a slouch.


----------



## tomscott (Mar 29, 2012)

I think its more expectations were not fulfilled 30% increase in price without 30% increase in features and quality.

It is an upgrade which was following an industry changing camera.

The people who complain are usually the ones you hear from the rest of the lucky people who got a 5D MKIII will be out shooting and enjoying it! and can probably use it... LOL!

but obviously there are teething problems in 3 months the small problems will be ironed out.


----------



## unkbob (Mar 29, 2012)

The 5D3 is the best full frame camera for video in the world, I believe - unless you prefer the higher resolution / increased moire of the D800 (would depend on what you're shooting). But still, I was hoping for a fully resolved 1080p. Having looked at a 1DX video sample on youtube, I'm not sure if that's true 1080p either.

Shooting a wedding with the 5D3 tomorrow. Guess I'd better figure out how to use it


----------



## CJRodgers (Mar 29, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> From what I've seen in samples, the d800 is clearly sharper, but with worse moire and aliasing than even the 5d2. Noise looks comparable to the 5d2 but the 5d3 smokes them both.
> 
> In the end it comes down to your choice of platform and your preference over resolved detail or less moire, less aliasing, and less noise. Neither is perfect, but neither is a slouch.



Could you show me some examples of the d800 moire vs 5dmkii please? I have heard lots of mixed opinions, but most saying it isnt as bad as the 5dmkii. So any more information on this would be great thanks. Im thinking of getting the 5dmkii seeing as i cant afford any other full frame right now. Thanks


----------



## psolberg (Mar 29, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> From what I've seen in samples, the d800 is clearly sharper, but with worse moire and aliasing than even the 5d2. Noise looks comparable to the 5d2 but the 5d3 smokes them both.
> 
> In the end it comes down to your choice of platform and your preference over resolved detail or less moire, less aliasing, and less noise. Neither is perfect, but neither is a slouch.



to my eyes, the D800 does not fall victim to brick walls as easily as the 5DmkII, which totally destroy it, so they did try to improve it over the 5DmkII moire but it seems it was not a priority and they chose to go for more detail. There were filters for the 5DmkII to deal with moire which I'm sure will make its way to nikon D800 videographers. I'm REALLY on the fence because 1) I don't shoot far away brick walls and know how to avoid moire, 2) most of my video is in natural settings where the repeating patterns that cause moire are less of a concern whereas detail is prime.

Looking at phillip bloom's footage, he tries hard to argue that you can sharpen in post, but he was shooting nature and so I have to question his true level of satisfaction. It is clear that his clips would have not needed sharpening if the camera was true 1080, and that he'd have a much higher quality footage from true 1080 than from sharpened lower res footage.



> Could you show me some examples of the d800 moire vs 5dmkii please? I have heard lots of mixed opinions, but most saying it isnt as bad as the 5dmkii. So any more information on this would be great thanks. Im thinking of getting the 5dmkii seeing as i cant afford any other full frame right now. Thanks



I have not seen side by side comparisons yet but I have seen plenty of horrible 5DII fotage over the year and IMO the D800 looks better in the moire department. That or it may just be perception because the footage is so much cleaner. I'm sure we'll see soon. Even if it was a the same level of awfulness as the 5DII, I think everybody knows how to work around that from the 5DII experience by now.


----------



## mrmarks (Mar 29, 2012)

The latest problem found with the 5D3 is the IS noise coming from certain lens-5D3 combination. It may be the case that all these teething issues (soft focus, write error, dead pixel) can be fixed by a firmware/software upgrade but it seems that there could be some hardware issues as well. I have not seen as many issues during the 5D2 release (black dot) and it seems that Canon has dropped the ball in the case of 5D3. Nikon seem to manage their new release better. Anyway this is an excellent example of never to be an early adopter. I'm putting off my purchase of the 5D3 and hopefully all these software/hardware bugs will be resolved in 2-3 months time by Canon.


----------



## CJRodgers (Mar 29, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Christian_Stella said:
> 
> 
> > From what I've seen in samples, the d800 is clearly sharper, but with worse moire and aliasing than even the 5d2. Noise looks comparable to the 5d2 but the 5d3 smokes them both.
> ...



Is the d800 true hd? I read about b lines meaning it didnt need as fast mb/s spped, but i didnt properly understand it.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Mar 29, 2012)

I think the only people complaining are video people. I think the stills crowd got most of what they wanted. Everything the 5dmkii lacked for stills, the 5dmkiii has, with the possible exception of a few people wanting much higher sensor resolution. 

The biggest complaint about 5dmkii for stills was AF performance. It seems like Canon responded to that complaint with much force. Then they made the camera even more rugged and waterproof. For stills, I think it was a nice upgrade from the 5dmkii.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> I think the only people complaining are video people. I think the stills crowd got most of what they wanted. Everything the 5dmkii lacked for stills, the 5dmkiii has, with the possible exception of a few people wanting much higher sensor resolution.
> 
> The biggest complaint about 5dmkii for stills was AF performance. It seems like Canon responded to that complaint with much force. Then they made the camera even more rugged and waterproof. For stills, I think it was a nice upgrade from the 5dmkii.


 
Yes, Canon is going to have "C" series bodies for Cinema use and to differentiate cameras intended primarily for video use from those that are primarily for stills. C300 is only the first. They did not startup that expensive video support center in Hollywood for just one body and a couple of lenses.


----------



## peederj (Mar 29, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> The biggest complaint about 5dmkii for stills was AF performance. It seems like Canon responded to that complaint with much force.



Except for, oh, AF at f/8.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 30, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> From what I've seen in samples, the d800 is clearly sharper, but with worse moire and aliasing than even the 5d2. Noise looks comparable to the 5d2 but the 5d3 smokes them both.
> 
> In the end it comes down to your choice of platform and your preference over resolved detail or less moire, less aliasing, and less noise. Neither is perfect, but neither is a slouch.



http://gizmodo.com/5897098/d800-vs-5d-mark-iii-which-shoots-better-video/

Yeah, on second thought the D800 is sharper, but, as you say it has worse aliasing and MUCH worse color moire, wow, that city scape's white lights are all shades of the rainbow ;D and the high ISO looks more of a mess on the D800. Plus, the sharpness isn't THAT much better, it's not like 300/GH2 full-on 1920x1080-looking and a nicely sharpened up 5D3 might not be far behind the D800 at all although definitely still far behind true 1920x1080 detail.

I think you have to give the video to the 5D3 over the D800. I think they could have blown it out of the water had they not watered it down to save the new cinema line (which I think is a dumb, dumb move, their revolution was in the DSLR price-class and they could it taken it to the world).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 30, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> I think the only people complaining are video people. I think the stills crowd got most of what they wanted. Everything the 5dmkii lacked for stills, the 5dmkiii has, with the possible exception of a few people wanting much higher sensor resolution.
> 
> The biggest complaint about 5dmkii for stills was AF performance. It seems like Canon responded to that complaint with much force. Then they made the camera even more rugged and waterproof. For stills, I think it was a nice upgrade from the 5dmkii.



well the landscape stills crowd are not happy, the new cam does not one thing for them, doesn't have more MP and doesn't have the tiniest little increase in dynamic range while Nikon's non-exmor sensors went up by over a stop for dynamic range and their exmor stuff is just nuts with like nearing 3 stops better dynamic range than the 5D3

the AF and increased speed are very nice for all the stuff that uses that though

I think if they had even just increased dynamic range 1.3 stops and gotten true 1920x1080 people would be raving and if they had gone 30MP, on top (all other specs the same), then wow. But same ISO100-400 performance, still 1280x720p detail for video without zebra stripes or zoom in while recording for focus, same MP and $800 more got some complaining going.

they surely should have had the 5D3 also do a crop mode 2x2 blocking like the C300 delivering trye 1920x1080 along with the soft 3x3 blocked FF 1280-720p-ish looking video.

foolish to protect the C300 so much


----------



## Christian_Stella (Mar 30, 2012)

In response to examples of the d800's moire, Gizmodo's side by side tests of the d800 and 5d3 showed an incredible amount of moire in the daytime shot of a skyline. The camera is panning to the right and as it gets to the right there is a building that is being absolutely devastated by moire. I found this a pretty telling thing because the building hardly even looked like something that should have caused moire in the first place. It certainly wasn't a brick wall of fine details is what I'm saying. 

In all honesty though, aliasing is my biggest concern. In the entire feature film I shot on the 5d2, only 2 shots display any moire (using only sharp Zeiss wide angles and a singh-ray variable ND)... But nearly all shots display some amount of aliasing. This is what was great about Phillip Bloom's review of the 5d3, while the nature wasn't the best example for moire, it's a wonderful example to show aliasing. It is practically non-existent on the 5d3. While the d800 is out resolving the 5d3, the aliasing does not look promising. Though maybe the samples have in-camera sharpening applied. 

Aliasing (and moire when it exists) is the final thing affecting the filmic look of DSLR footage. You can shoot 24fps with almost the correct shutter speed of 48, and you can apply a beautiful filmic color correction in post, but nothing will make your footage look like true film if jagged digital edges are present. 

You can definitely argue that resolution is another thing holding back a real film look, but I don't think the d800 is the answer there... Maybe once a third-party anti-aliasing filter is tested. Personally, because of my Canon glass, I'd probably rent a C300 for a higher budget shoot. For something with the sub 10k budget of my last film, I'm sticking with my 5d3. 

Take everything I say with a grain of salt though, as I am a photographer first and the 5d3 is my perfect camera for photography. I do believe though that that is something that can set you apart. I approach cinema no different than my regular photography and it can make for something more unique than the traditional master, closeup, closeup of normal shoots. We filmed about 1/4 of our movie The Battery in static single shots with no coverage, but it fit the lonely feeling we were going for. I know I can't compete with the big boys in cinematography, so I want to do something different.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Mar 30, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> stabmasterasron said:
> 
> 
> > I think the only people complaining are video people. I think the stills crowd got most of what they wanted. Everything the 5dmkii lacked for stills, the 5dmkiii has, with the possible exception of a few people wanting much higher sensor resolution.
> ...



Yes, I know the landscapers are not happy, that is why I mentioned the MP issue. The only thing that can help landscapers is MP and dynamic range - which the 5diii did not do much about. But for wedding photogs, event photogs, pj's, I think this camera was what they had been wanting. Killer AF (except f8), ruggedness, speed, weatherproofing. Yes, it does seem that Canon sacrificed MP for speed, but many will find that a good tradeoff.


----------



## Christian_Stella (Mar 30, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> Yes, I know the landscapers are not happy, that is why I mentioned the MP issue. The only thing that can help landscapers is MP and dynamic range - which the 5diii did not do much about. But for wedding photogs, event photogs, pj's, I think this camera was what they had been wanting. Killer AF (except f8), ruggedness, speed, weatherproofing. Yes, it does seem that Canon sacrificed MP for speed, but many will find that a good tradeoff.



Canon knows where their bread and butter is. Landscape photographers must be an almost nonexistent fraction of the paid professionals looking into this level of camera. I think as more and more video people start moving up to the new wave of dedicated video cams Canon is making sure they've focused on what has always been the core buyers of the 5d line... Wedding and event photographers. The 5d3 is a camera that can survive 3 1/2 more years of intense video competition because of wedding and event photographers. No matter what video functions they should have added, they would be out of date in months in this post 5d2 world of video cams.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 30, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> In response to examples of the d800's moire, Gizmodo's side by side tests of the d800 and 5d3 showed an incredible amount of moire in the daytime shot of a skyline. The camera is panning to the right and as it gets to the right there is a building that is being absolutely devastated by moire. I found this a pretty telling thing because the building hardly even looked like something that should have caused moire in the first place. It certainly wasn't a brick wall of fine details is what I'm saying.
> 
> In all honesty though, aliasing is my biggest concern. In the entire feature film I shot on the 5d2, only 2 shots display any moire (using only sharp Zeiss wide angles and a singh-ray variable ND)... But nearly all shots display some amount of aliasing. This is what was great about Phillip Bloom's review of the 5d3, while the nature wasn't the best example for moire, it's a wonderful example to show aliasing. It is practically non-existent on the 5d3. While the d800 is out resolving the 5d3, the aliasing does not look promising. Though maybe the samples have in-camera sharpening applied.
> 
> ...



from what I see on samples all over:

yeah, sadly I don't think the D800 is the answer (after sharpening the 5D3 the D800 isn't even THAT much sharper unlike some of the others and the aliasing and all look a mess)

the GH2 gets you the proper resolution although it does seem a bit jaggy and digital looking to me so it's not a filmic 1920x1080, although it is a real 1920x1080, but yeah a bit of a harsh, digital look for sure, maybe the GH3 will be it

the C300 and some other big boys get the 1920x1080 plus filmic look

the 5D3 is filmic in terms of aliasing and moire and stair-steps but doesn't really quite have the resolution and the NR and compression can seem kind of digital-looking at times, even the GH2 can be tighter 'grained', but overall, I'd take it over the other APS-C through FF-sized DSLRs so far, not as nasty with aliasing and moire as the previous ones or the current D4/D800 options.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 30, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > stabmasterasron said:
> ...



yeah it's great improvement for the other stuff, hitting 6fps is big that's the absolute minimum that can start working a bit for action so taht is big and the AF sounds like a phenomenal step up, it is a shame they didn't at least increase the dynamic range even if they kept MP same for speed's sake. Had they kept MP the sam ebut at least increased dynamic range even many landscape shooters may have been reasonably happy and mixed shooters thrilled (well other than the wildlife people, I know my 7D gets me more reach than my 5D2, but if it did everything else, then whatever for now, can't every last thing at once)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 30, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> stabmasterasron said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I know the landscapers are not happy, that is why I mentioned the MP issue. The only thing that can help landscapers is MP and dynamic range - which the 5diii did not do much about. But for wedding photogs, event photogs, pj's, I think this camera was what they had been wanting. Killer AF (except f8), ruggedness, speed, weatherproofing. Yes, it does seem that Canon sacrificed MP for speed, but many will find that a good tradeoff.
> ...



yeah but tons of amateurs buy these too and even for pros, even if landscapes is not where the money comes from, you can't deny that landscape-type shots are some of the most often taken types of shots overall and a bit extra dynamic range certainly wouldn't hurt wedding guys either, so i can buy the keeping the MP the same, but the DR is a real shame (if the 1DX has better DR then Canon really messed up big time IMO, focusing on getting DR into the wrong cam and getting too greedy for profit margins on the 5D3, which are rumored to be very high,OTOH if the 1DX has the same DR then Canon seems to be stuck, stuck without exmor patents, too stubborn to buy others, too much needing to still earn money from their old fabs, or something and they simply couldn't get there now even if maybe they had tried)


----------



## Jedifarce (Apr 1, 2012)

Ponte506 said:


> On top of that, for anyone that's seen "Act of Valor" can also see a lot of the amazing footage the 5d2 was able to conjure up, most ALL of the first person helmet cam shots as well as a notable scene in which one of the main villains is observing a warehouse full of bomb-makers.



Let's keep in mind Shane Hurlbut when not using the helmet cams for Act of Valor, was employing $100K glass for his cinematic shots and in order to eliminate the noise and compression problems from the video in post production, had CinnaFilm's use Dark Energy to clean it up which probably wasn't cheap. Nobody outside of the film industry can afford these options.


----------



## Jedifarce (Apr 1, 2012)

psolberg said:


> 3) Hollywood is moving on from clumsy dslrs to dedicated video cameras that offer the same benefits and better quality and features. Sure they cost more, but the budgets are there when you consider how much is to shoot with real film and panavision or ultra high end sony equipment. Canon, Red, Sony, all know this. It makes no sense for them to try to be jacks of all trades but masters of none. These companies are out to make the best video cameras possible. HDRLS desinged for wedding and sport shooting under $4K, just aren't going to be able to keep up.



What exactly do you base this garbage on? Paramount Pictures recently released the film 'Like Crazy' on blu-ray last month, it won the Sundance filim festival and was shot on the 7D. I believe you're confusing budget with ability. If you're able to create a film on a cheaper budget with cheaper equipment, it doesn't matter. 

The fact you can't comprehend this is probably why you're here spouting nonsense while there are others actually out there making independent films.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 1, 2012)

Jedifarce said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > 3) Hollywood is moving on from clumsy dslrs to dedicated video cameras that offer the same benefits and better quality and features. Sure they cost more, but the budgets are there when you consider how much is to shoot with real film and panavision or ultra high end sony equipment. Canon, Red, Sony, all know this. It makes no sense for them to try to be jacks of all trades but masters of none. These companies are out to make the best video cameras possible. HDRLS desinged for wedding and sport shooting under $4K, just aren't going to be able to keep up.
> ...



no confusion. simply stating the facts. dslrs aren't the end all and be all of film just because they have been used in the past. They are simply being displaced by dedicated gear with offers the benefits of interchangleable optics and don't have to be crippled by worthless photographic form factors, and useless hardware like phisical shutters and mirror boxes. As such, they are destined to return to their true purpose of taking stills as time goes on. This has nothing to do with being an independant film maker or not. It is a matter of practicality and quite soon afordability. As pricess keep falling down (look at the FS700 which is alleged to shoot 4K for just $8K) it you'll get better quality and prices from dedicated video gear, with all the benefits of a lens system. It is inevitable. Like it or not, it is the future.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 2, 2012)

No I'm not disappointed at all, I'll finally be able to have the main camera look as good as cam 2 and 3. Usually I have a 16-35L or 14L II on a 5DII as the static cam, a 7D with 35L or 50L on a rig, and another 5DII on a fluid head with the 85L or 135L. We shoot in really random places and generally use available light, so usually the static cam suffers a bit because it's maxed out at f/2.8 while the others are shooting at f/2 with no problems. So I'd find myself cranking the 5DII with wide lens up to 1600 (which is my limit for pro work) while the other cams were usually at 320-640. Now I know I can do 1600 or even 3200 on the main cam and not have to worry about it not looking as good as the other 2. 

The camera is awesome, aside from the video improvements the stills side is just incredible, I feel like I can't miss a shot. However, I've been saying for months that the 5DIII would only have improved video in an effort to not eat into the Cinema DSLR sales. I have a feeling we have a hell of a video camera coming our way and I can't wait to see what it can do.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 2, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> However, I've been saying for months that the 5DIII would only have improved video in an effort to not eat into the Cinema DSLR sales.



I still think that was a mistake. It's much harder for them to compete at the Cinema level or maybe more like it's harder for them to really stand out there as something remarkable even if they can compete there. But a full out effort on the 5D3, THAT would've kept them on the top of the raves heap and the 5D3 would've flown off the shelves maybe even faster than the 5D2. Instead you have people eyeing new Sonys at the somewhat higher end and giving the 5D3 (for video) meh reviews. They had a revolution, a gold mine, but I wonder if that is now over.

(if it truly was not technically possible to get a sharp, actual 1920x1080 out of then it is not a mistake though of course, but just a fact of life, it seems hard to believe that at least a cropped 2x2 sampling like the C300 does couldn't have delivered 1920x1080 on the 5D3 and the mode would have be useful at times even regardless, the other makers all see the point in cropped video modes, only Canon holds back as Canon is so in love with doing.)

Had they added a true-res 1920x1080 1.6x cropped 2x2 block mode, zebra stripes and focus check zooming while recording I bet they would've have all the video bloggers going nuts and raving like mad about it. Instead all I saw were rants, although some of them have no tempered to meh or not bad at all, but I still don't see the sort of raves they could've had.


----------

