# 5DM3 for video?



## thundermonkey (Feb 23, 2012)

Hi all. 

I currently shoot with the 60D and have to deal with a lot of low light shooting. By chance, does anyone have a t2i/60d and 5D, and have you noticed a difference say, using the same lenses on either camera and notice if the 5D makes a significant difference in low light shooting?

I am currently trying to figure out how to get the absolute best low light performance out of my camera. Yes, I know of the native ISOs, and I bough neat video, but I am wondering if getting the Mk3 might help me up my game as well. Of course, that same money could get me another cam (maybe T4i) and another lens or two. Just trying to figure out what is the wisest thing to do!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2012)

A FF sensor gathers more total light, and that translates directly to a 1.33-stop advantage of lower ISO noise


----------



## thundermonkey (Feb 24, 2012)

OK, but tell me this. Saying stuff like that is all good, but is it one of those things where "on paper" it is better but not so much in reality?

I'm trying to figure out if it really is a case that, yes, you should absolutely try to go the 5D route for video because it is worth it in terms of the image you get.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Feb 25, 2012)

The current 5D2 is much better in low light than any Canon APS-C camera. I would guess that the 5D3 will improve on that. Wether it will provide a noticeable enough improvement in low light to justify the cost is a subjective matter but the general consensus is that the 5D2 is is a worthwhile upgrade if you are primarily shooting in low light situations.

If you haven't already, I suggest you watch the three part Zacuto shootout that compares a lot of cameras in various scenarios: http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 25, 2012)

thundermonkey said:


> OK, but tell me this. Saying stuff like that is all good, but is it one of those things where "on paper" it is better but not so much in reality?
> 
> I'm trying to figure out if it really is a case that, yes, you should absolutely try to go the 5D route for video because it is worth it in terms of the image you get.



Yes, I used to have a T2i and have had a 5DII for over a year and I shoot video 90% of the time. There is a significant difference in low-light capability between the two, generally the larger the sensor, the better it does in low light. 

For instance, with the T2i, ISO800 is pretty much the limit for shooting acceptable video, and even at 800 there is a fair mount of noise. But with the 5D you can get away with ISO 1600 all day, and will look less noisy than a T2i at ISO 800, so there is a pretty big difference. But with the 5D you'll also get more shallow depth of field, and your lenses will look less "zoomed" than they do on your 60D. Your wide angle lenses will actually look wide instead of medium telephoto-ish. Also the 5DII handles rolling shutter much better than the 60D.

As for whether it's worth it or not to buy a 5DIII, I'd honestly say no. If you aren't even sure of the differences between an FF and APS-C sensor I would guess that you aren't doing work at the level that would necessitate purchasing a brand new $3500 camera. You would be better off buying new glass and upgrading bodies once the price of the 5DIII drops, or you could get a 5DII and it would still be a big improvement over the 60D.


----------



## SPG (Feb 25, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Also the 5DII handles rolling shutter much better than the 60D.



I think you mean that the other way around. I don't own a 5DII, but when I've used one I thought the jello effect was much more pronounced than on my 7D (same sensor as 60D).


----------



## cinema-dslr (Feb 25, 2012)

Exactly The jello effect is caused by the speed at wich a sensor is readout.
The 5dII has it worst because of larger sensor and the digic 4 has more work to do with the codec.
The aps-c camera's have a smaller more in line of s35 sensor and is newer tech so readout is faster also the codec is more robust.
The 5dx/III probably will fix things and be much better.
The FF camera's definitely have higher iso capability/smaller DOF.


----------



## tt (Feb 26, 2012)

SPG said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Also the 5DII handles rolling shutter much better than the 60D.
> ...




For rolling shutter - about 6 and 7.30 min in on the Zacuto Great Camera shootout. http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-three


----------



## thundermonkey (Feb 27, 2012)

My main thing is that I maybe just need to figure out how to best utilize the situation I am in. I have a lot of low light situations to deal with. Even for situations that are not "low" light they are poorly lit all the same, and external lighting is almost never an option.

So perhaps I need some help in figuring out how best to expose what I shoot. I generally just eyeball what I am shooting and shoot as wide as I can. For something like a wedding ceremony, though, I encounter the problem where shooting at 1.4 on my 50mm will result in people going out of focus at times as you probably guessed. However, jumping up to 2.8 might still make things a bit too dark, though maybe I am overthinking it and should just bump things up to 1250 or so in ISO.


----------



## filmrebel (Mar 1, 2012)

*5D III Slow Motion?*

Hey everyone. What do you think is in store for the video fps rate of the 5d III. I'm not asking if anyone knows, I'm just wondering what you'll think. 60p 720p (or even better 60p 1080p)? Thanks!


----------



## ed24 (Mar 1, 2012)

*Re: 5D III Slow Motion?*



filmrebel said:


> Hey everyone. What do you think is in store for the video fps rate of the 5d III. I'm not asking if anyone knows, I'm just wondering what you'll think. 60p 720p (or even better 60p 1080p)? Thanks!



I predict exactly the same as the 1DX, there is no way they'll let a DSLR out perform the C300 on frame rates. I'd be astonished if there was a 1080p setting for 50/60FPS.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 2, 2012)

it does look like it beats the c300 in bitrate though. The way I interepret the specs is 10.1 MBs (80Mbs), so that looks like 30fps @4:2:2. Anyone else agree?


----------



## WoodysGamertag (Mar 2, 2012)

*Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

I pre-ordered the 5DM3 because I have a sizable investment in L glass and as a T3i guy it's a solid improvement for me.

However, I have started wondering if the 5DM3 still has the video edge over the D800. Mostly just out of curiosity, I'm not interested in switching. 

What are the pros and cons of each system for guys with a video focus?


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 2, 2012)

^Thank you for correcting my math. 

The comparison to Blu-ray is a bit deceiving though. Because Blu-ray is a finalized product in compressed form. You need more information to do post production work. But either way, 90Mbs looks good. I just hope they don't nerf it when they realize that it outclasses the C300 in this one aspect.


----------



## NormanBates (Mar 2, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

still no idea, we'll have to wait for detailed reviews
the canon seems to have better in-camera codec, but the nikon has clean HDMI-out
the canon should be moire/aliasing free, the nikon may have some
the nikon has a very fast rolling shutter and therefore nearly no jello artifacts, no idea on the canon
but for the most part: no idea, let's wait and see


----------



## NormanBates (Mar 2, 2012)

you can't compare bitrates so easily
90 Mbps with all-intra may be more editing-friendly but worse image quality than 33 Mbps with IPB
or it may be the other way around
so: we just don't know yet


----------



## kkoster (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

Not sure yet until we see some in-depth reviews.

I for one am sticking firmly with my 5D2 for now. I see nothing in the new specs for the 5D3 that is enough to tempt me to upgrade.

Would be a different story for me if I saw 1080p at 60fps, or 120fps at 1280x720. But it's just a full frame 7D really, with an extra 2 stops of light over the 5D2... at least it seems that way to me.

A bit disappointing but will keep an open mind.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

""The video bitrate is a very high* 91Mbit** in 1080p ALL-I mode. That is well beyond broadcast standard AVC Intra 50." 8)


----------



## schemula (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

I am a T2i looking to upgrade to full frame at some point. To this point I have spent my money on lenses, so, Nikon is not an option.

Only based on the Canon PR, I see a few claims specific to video:


29 minute 59 second record length - auto splits 4GB files
less moiré
720p 60fps
all I-Frame compression 
embedded timecode

They also had some audio improvements including a headphone jack, but I use a field recorder and don't do audio on the camera.

Unless the moiré performance is truly dramatic, I may opt for one of the used 5DM2 we are likely to see from upgraders.

But like everyone else says, we'll know more when people actually get these in their hands and report back.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*



schemula said:


> I am a T2i looking to upgrade to full frame at some point, and to this point, I have spent my money on lenses. So, Nikon is not an option.
> 
> Only based on the Canon PR, I see a few claims specific to video:
> 
> ...



Word is the moire is reduced to the point that it won't ruin shots. It's dramatically improved over the Mark ll.


----------



## epiem (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

No 1080p @ 60fps was pretty much the reason we won't be buying one of these for a long time.

Not at a $3500 price tag anyway.
If it was $3000, we would probably pick up at least two.

We'll stick with all of our 5DmII's for now. Great camera for ALMOST half the price!


----------



## MikeHunt (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*



WoodysGamertag said:


> I pre-ordered the 5DM3 because I have a sizable investment in L glass and as a T3i guy it's a solid improvement for me.
> 
> However, I have started wondering if the 5DM3 still has the video edge over the D800. Mostly just out of curiosity, I'm not interested in switching.



Canon have provided a video that shows the new 5D Mark III video capabilities with lots of 'L' glass:

Canon 5D3 HD Sample Video


----------



## pravkp (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

You may refer to eoshd.com good info there. 
From what I understand, 5d3 wont disappoint you regardless of what Nikon offers. 8)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

Check out Vincent laforet's blog. He is the one who first popularized video in the 5D MK II.

His tone says it all, he did not participate in making videos with it. Its improved, but other models do much better. Its a pretty unenthusiastic comment coming from a Canon maker of light."

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/

Here is the first paragraph!

"I obviously didn’t choose to thrown my hat into the ring in the quest to shoot a sequel to Reverie for the launch of this camera - and that is due to four main reasons:

1. I find it foolish to mess with a good thing…

2. The specs on this camera don’t necessarily warrant it.

3. No clean HDMI out… why…why…why? (not!?)

4. I thought that the Canon C300 was a bigger leap forward – and therefore chose to throw my hat in the ring to shoot "Mobius" just a few months ago for the Hollywood launch of Canon’s Cinema EOS line at Paramount in Hollywood. Canon’s move into the cinema market was a much bigger development in my book – pretty spectacular given how quickly it happened, following the MKII’s launch a few years earlier. The C300 is in effect the Canon 5D MKII all grown up – but a pure video camera (not a still camera.)"


----------



## pravkp (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

I honestly think if you were ok with 5d2 video- given its shortcomings, you should be certainly happy with 5d3 output.
c300 is in a different league. After mobius I doubt if Vincent laforet would want to throw his weight behind 5d3. May be he's gotta a taste of the 'C' model that Canon has at its workshop - which might explain his disappointment.


----------



## ed24 (Mar 3, 2012)

*5DMK3 HDMI Out*

Ok, so quite a lot of chit chat about this. I would have liked uncompressed out, it would be really handy but the industry has got by without it for the last 3 years. Plus I think Canon are just holding this back for the 4K DSLR which I think will be announced in September. 

What concerns me, and frankly annoys me quite a bit is this. If Gordon Laing is correct, and he nearly always is. Then Canon has done something pretty cheeky. 

This is a quote from Gordon's preview of the camera on Camera Labs. 

"You already know about the new headphone jack in addition to a stereo microphone input, but I understand the Mark III also outputs a higher resolution signal through the HDMI port once recording begins. I also believe the display icons remain present though, so I don't think anyone will be recording the output; I'm confirming this.

What's that all about? Any thoughts or shall I just move this to a video specific thread? Haha.

Apologies if this has already been raised.


----------



## MikeHunt (Mar 3, 2012)

*Re: 5DMK3 HDMI Out*

The new 5D Mk III does not output uncompressed video, unlike the Nikon D800 (unfortunately). What this means - and I've tried this with my 7D - is that whilst you're recording in 1080p full-HD what you see on an external monitor is not what you actually get on the CF card (or as Bill Gates would say the new Canon is not WYSIWYG).

A lot of videographers have invested in 5D Mark II's + a lot of 'L' primes. The inclusion of full uncompressed HDMI out would have meant it was a no-brainer to upgrade all their older 5D2 bodies for new 5D3. Now, who knows.

The issue of actually recording the HDMI out signal simultaneously is a bit of a red herring, I mean why would you want to do that without any fixing in post??

I've recorded interviews in a hotel conference room whilst simultaneously monitoring the recordings on a 60-inch LCD TV, to check custom-WB, focus etc. and it doesn't look great. In the end it was a distraction, so I stopped.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 4, 2012)

*Re: 5DMK3 HDMI Out*

Nikon just became the leader in DLSR video. Through their uncompressed hdmi out, we get 4;2;2 vs 4;2;0. That's a seriously big deal in general...but incredibly important if you do green screen stuff. I'm hearing mixed things about Magic Lantern offering clean hdmi out via a hack. We'll see.

Canon has a massive dslr following though, where many have invested heavily in Canon lenses, accessories, etc. Jumping ship ain't so easy.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 4, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

Mobius was probably the worst of the demos, and an embarrassment to filmmaking. He could have done much better with the baller c300. So if he is going to comment on a camera he hasn't used, then why should we care?


----------



## VishVR (Mar 4, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*



WoodysGamertag said:


> I pre-ordered the 5DM3 because I have a sizable investment in L glass and as a T3i guy it's a solid improvement for me.
> 
> However, I have started wondering if the 5DM3 still has the video edge over the D800. Mostly just out of curiosity, I'm not interested in switching.
> 
> What are the pros and cons of each system for guys with a video focus?



Personally I am sticking with 5DII, my next upgrade is going to be doing 4k video.


----------



## Leadfingers (Mar 5, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

What's "L glass"? Are you referring to Canon's premier level lenses?

Personally, I'm a bit down trodden over the lack of 1080 @ 60. If only because this $600 Nikon has it.. http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/j1/spec.htm


----------



## sh00terman (Mar 5, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

wow, crazy to read posts here about people complaining it's not a sufficient enough upgrade, or too expensive, not worth it, etc. i mean really? 

first of all, with its new compression abilities alone, importing into an avid (what i use) will be a vast improvement over the mark II. to complain that it doesn't have a 1080p 60 chip - which the 1dx doesn't have either - therefore, it's not worth it, is just plain silly. first of all, shooting high speed is so yesteryear. i don't know many DPs, producers shooting 60p in the broadcast world i traverse in anymore - which is high-end sports docs. maybe if you are making vimeo videos, having a 1080p, 60 chip will rock your musical montages... right there with all of them TL videos, which are yesteryear as well. if you want to make slow mo video step up to the phantom and do real slo mo. 

what matters the most and why we use these cameras are to tell stories. for example, having the ability to shoot without a ton of lights adds to the versatility of the 5d and allowing more intimate access with the subject. now you have an upgrade coming out that will allow you to shoot in even lower light conditions, while improving picture quality -- wow, that's a filmmaker/tv maker's dream come true. 

since somebody here mentioned c300, let me chime in: the c300 was not built from a 5d. in fact, it was three years in the making (do math) and was based on canon's video cameras - not DSLRs and targeting cinema DPs, NOT 5d users. the c300, is most amazing with capturing images in low light - just breathtaking. however, it's nowhere close to 5d mark II and mark III with regards to versatility and ease of use, especially, in a run and gun world.

and really, does anyone care what vincent has to say? obviously, canon doesn't. 

lastly, i edit and shoot extensively with the 5d in the high-end world of broadcast TV. we also use a lot of footage from RED, sony F3, Alexa and Varicam. the 5d mark II holds up mighty fine against all of those other, MORE expensive cameras. in fact, when all of the mentioned camera's files are transcoded into avid media composer with its DNX compression - real world for most of TV that airs - the mark II looks just amazing and hard to imagine that it's so much cheaper than those other cameras... hence that revolution it started. now canon is coming out with a new version that actually improves compression and greatly improves the video, offering better low light sensitivity to noise ratio - and that's not worth a grand more? 

well, good thing they put a headphone jack in it.


----------



## theuserjohnny (Mar 5, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*

For me personally the video isn't that big of a leap. Sure it might look better and they fixed some of the artificial video but it isn't that huge of a leap. Personally I'm waiting for the next camera from camera which is the "4k video DSLR" from them. It won't have a huge price tag like the C300 but it won't be cheap as well. 

I mainly shoot video w/ my 5D Mark II but while excited about the 5D III there just wasn't enough to really make me wanna go for it. If your doing video you should wait for the "4K video DSLR".


----------



## AG (Mar 5, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*



WoodysGamertag said:


> ...However, I have started wondering if the 5DM3 still has the video edge over the D800....



Funny you should mention that when this blog went live last night.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/news/whoops_nikon_uses_canon_dslr_footage_to_launch_d800.html

If its legit its a pretty big PR blow for Nikon.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 5, 2012)

Eye of Mind looks pretty good, but it's only available in low res (WTF Canon?). 

Mario & Nette is a disgrace, and someone should get fired for deciding to use it as a sample movie. 

Color of Hope is okay, but like Mario & Nette they relied too much on natural light. I really want to see what the camera can do under Ideal conditions.


----------



## MikeHunt (Mar 6, 2012)

Canon 5D Mk III 1080p Sample with EF Lenses

5D3 looks awesome for video, check out the new EF 24-70mm f2.8L II lens in the middle part (especially nighttime shots @ ISO=3200)

I think the new combo : 5D3 + 24-70mm II will blow away the old 5D MkII + 24-70mm mk I


----------



## thundermonkey (Mar 6, 2012)

Nice to see this thread is still going.

Having looked at this video https://vimeo.com/37879608

I think it is clear I need to get the Mark 3, coming from a 60D. If I had a Mark 2 I would probably stick with it. I will look out for some more reviews, but I think I really want the Mark 3 now. Would come in really handy with that low light capability.

Anyone else considering the M3 from a crop sensor?


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 6, 2012)

^I think it's time we all start calling it the m3 ;D

I'm torn between upgrading to m3 from mkII or making a big lens investment.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 7, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*



HurtinMinorKey said:


> Mobius was probably the worst of the demos, and an embarrassment to filmmaking. He could have done much better with the baller c300. So if he is going to comment on a camera he hasn't used, then why should we care?



See there's your mistake, thinking that the fact that he had a C300 made ANY difference in the story whatsoever. In video the story is 100x more important than the camera. You can't just give someone an Alexa and expect that to make the story, it absolutely will not. People would much rather see a good movie with lower resolution than some piece of garbage shot on a really high end camera.


----------



## cnewley (Mar 7, 2012)

https://vimeo.com/38055013

Here's a raw IPB file for you. Set-up to test moire, rolling shutter, ect..


----------



## gene_can_sing (Mar 7, 2012)

For Video, it definitely a BIG LETDOWN. No clean HDMI, I've read from early reports that it's STILL NOT true 1080p. Better than the up-res'd 720p on the current 5D2, but still soft even when compared to the $900 Panasonic GH2. Also, no 1080p 60 fps? WTF?!?!? Isn't this 2012?

I guess I will have to wait for the 4K C-VDSLR.

Plus, no Flip-Screen is a BIG NO NO for video. It makes doing odd angles so much easier. Which kind of confounds me about still photographers. Do stills guys only do straight on shots? Do stills guys not do interesting angles? The Flip Screen is absolutely needed for composing strange and off angles. I guess Cinematographers are just more of an adventurous bunch.

Please come out the C-VDSLR soon. I'm really tired of waiting Canon. You've made the video people wait a long time, and we are still waiting.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 7, 2012)

*Re: Is the 5DM3 better for video?*



Axilrod said:


> See there's your mistake, thinking that the fact that he had a C300 made ANY difference in the story whatsoever. In video the story is 100x more important than the camera. You can't just give someone an Alexa and expect that to make the story, it absolutely will not. People would much rather see a good movie with lower resolution than some piece of garbage shot on a really high end camera.



I think my point was two fold: 1. Take a cheap shot at an overrated photographer. 2. Point out that he is criticizing (on specs alone) a camera that he hasn't used. 

As to your point: On a personal level I could not agree with you more, but I'm not convinced the general public feels this way. 

I watched "Downton Abbey" over the weekend, and I swear this show would not be as popular without the *Alexa*. That camera makes each scene interesting because of the color and detail. Have you seen it?


----------

