# Canon 6D or 5D MKII - Which is Better for Video?



## AndyG (Apr 15, 2013)

A brand new Canon 6D is only slightly more expensive than a used Canon 5D MK II.
With that in mind I'm wondering which camera is better for video?

I shunned buying the 5D MK III because of the soft video straight out of the camera. 
(Yes I realize it can be post-sharpened, but quite often on I'm handing off my memory cards directly to the DIT and I cannot be giving them soft video).

The 6D appears to be sharper than the 5DMKIII albeit with much more moire/aliasing, but overall how does the 6D's video compare to the original 5D MK II?


----------



## Badger (Apr 15, 2013)

I have a 6D and love it. Don't buy it if video is your prime objective. Moire on it is downright embarrassing on the 6D. Get the 5D Mk III.


----------



## Badger (Apr 15, 2013)

Oops, just noticed you were asking about the Mk II. Not sure which is better there.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Apr 15, 2013)

I've shot video with both, and the moire is about the same. It just "feels" like there's a slight bit more on the 6D but even then I ask normal people if they notice or care about it and they really just don't. So I wouldn't throw a temper tantrum over moire just yet, if you want pro results then you gotta pay pro money. There are more advantages on the 6D for video over the 5D mark II, very important advantages at that. Most noticeable practical differences are the amount of video modes, and the visible audio meter while recording. Overall audio features (like the headphone jack) not as great as the 5D mark III, but definitely better than the 5D mark II. That's why we always use the 5D mark III as a main camera, and close ups for lapel mic'd shots. And of course, the primary yet somehow not as practical reason of getting the 6D over the 5D mark II.... Better noise performance at high ISO. It performs quite well in that department. (Just remember that quality of light will always determine better IQ over high ISO performance.) All in all, yes, 6D is better for video.


----------



## titokane (Apr 15, 2013)

I have both in my bag, and the 6D is the one I pull out more often for video. Generally they're very similar aesthetically until you need higher ISO levels, at which point the 6D is far and away the better camera. 6D also can auto-split files up to 30min of recording, while the 5D stops at the 4GB mark (around 12 minutes). The only consideration for getting the 5DMkII over the 6D (for video) would be if you need Magic Lantern functionality, which is available on the MkII but not on the 6D (yet).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 15, 2013)

I agree with the statements above. I own both bodies, and I vastly prefer the 6D because the video functionality is much better implemented and you have more control over it. As others have said, the 6D blows the 5DII out of the water when it comes to low light performance - a big deal with video!

As for the moire - I have seen it when reviewers intentionally create scenarios to emphasize (fast panning over textured areas), but I haven't seen it all in my own use, where I attempt to use more static shots and then add movement in post.


----------



## Midphase (Apr 15, 2013)

AndyG said:


> I shunned buying the 5D MK III because of the soft video straight out of the camera.
> (Yes I realize it can be post-sharpened, but quite often on I'm handing off my memory cards directly to the DIT and I cannot be giving them soft video).



I don't really get that. It's a bit like saying you don't want to hand off your RED Epic files to the DIT because they're a bit too "neutral"....WTF?

If you work on productions with a DIT, you really shouldn't be even thinking about shooting with a DSLR but rather with something a bit more suited for pro video like a C100, or a Scarlet. 

If your concern is with visual quality, then not going with the mkIII makes no sense. The 5D3 produces video which is noticeably better than the mkII and definitely the 6D. The thing about moire is that it can sneak up on you where you least expect it, like that perfectly grey jacket that talent is wearing and which has a weird stitching pattern that you had no idea was going to make it look radioactive on a 6D.

If your purchasing decision is purely derived from cost, then my advice would be to spend the least amount as possible (i.e. a used 5D2 which I'm sure you can find in good shape for around $1500 or less), and keep saving up until you can afford the Blackmagic Pro camera which is really what you ultimately want if you're serious about video but can't afford the Alexa.


----------



## preppyak (Apr 16, 2013)

Midphase said:


> If your purchasing decision is purely derived from cost, then my advice would be to spend the least amount as possible (i.e. a used 5D2 which I'm sure you can find in good shape for around $1500 or less), and keep saving up until you can afford the Blackmagic Pro camera which is really what you ultimately want if you're serious about video but can't afford the Alexa.


Well, and at $2995 vs $1999ish for the 6D, I'd say your DIT would be a heck of a lot happier getting ProRes or RAW out of the BMCC instead of the .mov's of a DSLR.

If you're looking for absolute sharpness and someone else is handling the final look, then the GH2/GH3 would produce sharper shots.

For me, I find Magic Lantern pretty irreplaceable, so the 5dII would be the option over the 6D.


----------



## AndyG (Apr 16, 2013)

I will be getting both a Blackmagic Production Camera and perhaps a Blackmagic Pocket Camera, but I also shoot a lot of low light live events where the Blackmagic Cameras wouldn't be ideal. 

My typical "low light live event"shooting scenario is filming with a DSLR with an I.S. lens handheld using a Zacuto Z-Finder. 

A number of Los Angeles venues will allow DSLRs, but do not allow "Pro" camcorders or Shoulder Rigs without the performers (whom I'm there to film) paying a hefty extra "filming" fee. For whatever reason they don't object to (or charge extra for) simple DSLRs with perhaps a Rode Mic on top.

The Canon C100 is great in many ways (although it has a pathetic viewfinder), but it's hard for me to justify spending 5.5K on the C100 just for certain live events when I will already be shelling out 4K+2K to purchase the BMPC with accessories.

The Canon 1Dx produces great video, but again the price factor - 6K+ (and not even a headphone jack).

I've never personally held a Canon 5DMKIII, but from all of the reviews and videos online I've been scared away from it because of the softness of the video.

The Canon 6D is relatively cheap so that's why I was wondering how it compared to the original 5DMKII.


----------



## Midphase (Apr 16, 2013)

AndyG said:


> I've never personally held a Canon 5DMKIII, but from all of the reviews and videos online I've been scared away from it because of the softness of the video.



I use a 5D3, I think the image looks fantastic. I just shot a 40 minute film with it, we used a 5D2 as a b camera and I can absolutely tell the difference in quality between the two. I don't think the softness of the image should be a concern, especially since the image can withstand post-sharpening quite well.

Watch the Phil Bloom review of it and it should ease your concerns quite a bit:

http://philipbloom.net/2012/04/09/5dmk3/


----------

