# 6D not usable for shooting video?



## schmidtfilme (Jan 25, 2013)

Hello,

I think many like myself are thinking about getting the 6D for video instead of the Mark 3 as it is about $1000 cheaper. So I ordered one early Dec 12 for shooting video. Unfortunately I found out pretty fast that the moire and aliasing issues are so bad that the camera is unusable for video production. I sold it on eBay and now bought the Canon 5D Mark 3 instead. For taking pictures the camera is wonderful and I can highly recommend it. 

To show the moire and aliasing issues I uploaded this simple clip.

http://youtu.be/xo1-8saWqsk

As I thought this might be of general interest I shared it as this buying and selling costed me more pennies then I liked.

Cheers
- Andreas


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Jan 25, 2013)

ill stick with me mrk3 

didnt realize how bad that moire was 0_0


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 25, 2013)

Maybe that guy just has a neon roof? 

That was pretty bad. A shame.


----------



## titokane (Jan 25, 2013)

If you have the $1000 more to spend the 5D3 is great, but if not the 6D is a great alternative. We've been filming around moire issues for years with the 5D2 so saying the 6D isn't usable for shooting video is like saying a new Camry isn't drivable because it only goes just as fast as a Camry from a few years ago and not as fast as a new Lexus. 

I've been using the 6D for video since it came out. My clients are happy with the results. Other shooters are constantly blown away by the low-light capabilities. If you absolutely have to shoot moire-inducing patterns regularly, and can't get around it by turning the in-camera sharpening off, tweaking focus, or pointing the camera somewhere else, you obviously know which camera to buy. Otherwise, if you can't figure out how to shoot a good video on the 6D spending the extra grand isn't going to help.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 25, 2013)

Oh my... Is that a new holographic roof installed on your building?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jan 25, 2013)

titokane said:


> If you have the $1000 more to spend the 5D3 is great, but if not the 6D is a great alternative. We've been filming around moire issues for years with the 5D2 so saying the 6D isn't usable for shooting video is like saying a new Camry isn't drivable because it only goes just as fast as a Camry from a few years ago and not as fast as a new Lexus.
> 
> I've been using the 6D for video since it came out. My clients are happy with the results. Other shooters are constantly blown away by the low-light capabilities. If you absolutely have to shoot moire-inducing patterns regularly, and can't get around it by turning the in-camera sharpening off, tweaking focus, or pointing the camera somewhere else, you obviously know which camera to buy. Otherwise, if you can't figure out how to shoot a good video on the 6D spending the extra grand isn't going to help.



+1

Moire is potentially an issue on any camera, just so happens the roof tiles hit the magic pitch to annoy your sensor. I get the same issue on XDCAMHD when I film anybody with a foxtooth patterned garment. I remember having to butcher a PL filter and fit some stockings in place of the glass on the first firmware version of the VX1000. And I combat moire regularly on my own two cameras and anytime I;ve used a hired 5D2.

So it's not an issue unique to the 6D.

I treat everything I shoot on a DSLR. Bare minimum is a half pixel guassian blur over everything. I can use up to 1.125 on something really bad.

Things that help:

Keeping everything progressive. From your transcoding or interpretation, to your timeline field order to your output codec, to your DVD or BR burning. Its a progressive camera, make sure everything else in the chain is progressive. Don't a assume. Check.

Marvels DSLR plug-in can help if applied with care.

If you have a locked off shot you can also selectively apply blur using garbage matting.

If none of this makes sense, then I've over pitched it. You may have got a dud 6D. You probably didn't. And someday you'll hit a fabric or texture that does this to your 5D3.

Like titokane said, learn to shoot around it, via on camera settings and or how to fix it in post.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2013)

Yeah wow that's quite a mess. I've heard other similar complaints. It's hard to say for sure without shooting the same scene with both but I swear that looks noticeably worse than even the 5D2 and it's obviously miles worse than the 5D3!

Yeah for video the 6D is 100% not the way to get their more cheaply than the 5D3 if you don't need the fps and fancy AF and all (I do in my case anyway, but for those who don't....).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2013)

titokane said:


> If you have the $1000 more to spend the 5D3 is great, but if not the 6D is a great alternative. We've been filming around moire issues for years with the 5D2 so saying the 6D isn't usable for shooting video is like saying a new Camry isn't drivable because it only goes just as fast as a Camry from a few years ago and not as fast as a new Lexus.
> 
> I've been using the 6D for video since it came out. My clients are happy with the results. Other shooters are constantly blown away by the low-light capabilities. If you absolutely have to shoot moire-inducing patterns regularly, and can't get around it by turning the in-camera sharpening off, tweaking focus, or pointing the camera somewhere else, you obviously know which camera to buy. Otherwise, if you can't figure out how to shoot a good video on the 6D spending the extra grand isn't going to help.



It depends upon what you shoot. If you shoot natural world stuff or outdoors and don't want to have to pick and chose the few things you can shoot the 6D will no way cut it. If all you do it planned studio shoots or planned scenes where you can pick your outdoor background maybe you can get away with it, but that is an entirely different sort of shooting, not everyone does only that sort of shooting.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Like titokane said, learn to shoot around it, via on camera settings and or how to fix it in post.



Or just get a 5D3 so you can actually shoot what you want to shoot....
And you only fix things so much in post.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jan 25, 2013)

Yes a 5d3 will fix all your issues.








































Pfffffffft.


----------



## titokane (Jan 26, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It depends upon what you shoot. If you shoot natural world stuff or outdoors and don't want to have to pick and chose the few things you can shoot the 6D will no way cut it. If all you do it planned studio shoots or planned scenes where you can pick your outdoor background maybe you can get away with it, but that is an entirely different sort of shooting, not everyone does only that sort of shooting.



I shoot documentary type work with it -- run and gun from indoor to outdoor, brick walls, wood grain, circus nets, buffets, beaches, forests, network racks, stone temples, seminars, everything near far and in between. That's why I love this camera -- it's great in any sort of lighting situation, which is something I often can't control (or am not allowed to control). I have the sharpening set to 0 (important) and get it back in post. I take a brief moment to set exposure, framing, focus, and then I'm off. I've literally never had to discard a shot from the 6D because of moire issues.

The 6D cuts it. This is from experience using it with it set up properly, which most people complaining about it don't have.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 26, 2013)

titokane said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It depends upon what you shoot. If you shoot natural world stuff or outdoors and don't want to have to pick and chose the few things you can shoot the 6D will no way cut it. If all you do it planned studio shoots or planned scenes where you can pick your outdoor background maybe you can get away with it, but that is an entirely different sort of shooting, not everyone does only that sort of shooting.
> ...



Interesting that nobody else has sharpness 0 magically curing all moire.


----------



## ManixLiquid (Jan 26, 2013)

Mosaic is working on a anti-moire filter for the 6D and Magic Lantern will be releasing a firmware soon for the 6D. It will most likely fix most problems.


----------



## titokane (Jan 26, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Interesting that nobody else has sharpness 0 magically curing all moire.



Never said it 'magically cures all moire,' but I'm pretty sure you know that. There are very specific circumstances that will cause the 6D to show moire, and it's most pronounced (like in the above clip) when sharpness is turned up. It's much lower (though still present) when the camera isn't doing broad-stroke sharpening to the image. Moire is an issue when you film things that will obviously produce moire, so small framing and focus adjustments can normally make the problem less serious than filming rows of parallel lines, which the majority of videographers don't do. These small, often on-the-fly adjustments are what professionals do every time they put a camera in their hand.

I don't whip-pan a DSLR because the sensor doesn't scan globally. I don't film completely overexposed content because I can't recover the highlights. I don't shoot on class 2 memory cards because they're not fast enough. And I don't crank the in-camera sharpening up, shoot tons of fine pattern detail that a line-skipping sensor can't properly resolve, and then get angry at the camera when it doesn't look right.

There's a tool for every situation. The 6D is great for plenty of them. Certainly more than enough for it to be "usable shooting video."


----------



## schmidtfilme (Jan 26, 2013)

Hi all,

I didn't post this little clip and my experience to be a pixel peeper and I added a "?" to the title. I think it is for everyone to decide wether he wants to spend $1000 more on a 5D M3.

I bought the 6D and I was fully aware of the test by Johnnie Behiri on Vimeo:

https://vimeo.com/54352877

and I found it quite acceptable for me. At least for a $1000 difference in price. But what I saw back at home after my first shooting of a festival just made me fall of my chair. Please watch the roofs on my little clip - the are blue flickering "BLUE !" instead just plain red. Defocussing when everything is at infinity might be an option but honestly - not a very good one. 

Second - I did post this here just to help everyone to make an informed buying decision as I believe a lot of people are very interested in this camera. 

Maybe here is another interesting video to understand the differences:

Canon Full Frame Shootout! Canon EOS 6D vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III vs Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Overall I really loved the 6D. Very solid build, good menus. Everything besides that moire and aliasing. I was really sad to let it go.

Cheers
Andreas


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 26, 2013)

titokane said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that nobody else has sharpness 0 magically curing all moire.
> ...



Yeah the not usable for any video is going way too far, but OTOH I think it is good that the OP makes it clear that there is a video difference between the 5D3 and the 6D and it's not just the fps and AF and such that are different and that it is not a trivial difference.

Giving slight focus misses can sometimes help a bit, but that won't work for every scenario.

And it's not just regular brick patterns, it is ripple patterns on lakes, long thing branches, wires, tiny Christmas lights moving in the wind appearing to flicker on and off as they hit part of the sensor that is sampled or not sampled, etc.

When they release a filter for it I'm sure it will help, not perfectly but definitely help, although it makes it more of a pain to use as the little do everything cam since each time you go back for a few stills snaps you have to mess with the filter.

Anyway, I'm sure the 6D is plenty usable for video, but it certainly has it's issues (on top of all the ones the 5D3 itself has), some may be OK with that for the savings but for those who go 5D3 instead you certainly get something extra in the video department as well as just the stills and general handling department.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jan 26, 2013)

Sometimes XDCAM just hasn't the colour depth.

Sometimes a Digibeta or HDCAM is just too conspicuous.

Sometimes a Red runs too hot.

Sometimes a GoPro just isn't enough.

Every camera has concessions. And the major concessions the 6D has, are nowhere near solved by having a 5D3.

It used to be the 5D2 bores. Glad they've been more upwardly mobile this time. If you are a 5D3 user and you want to pith all over the 6D's parade then have fun. The guys shooting on C300's, Sony F's or Arri's haven't even noticed you are in the room.

It is all relative. If somebody is capable of getting good video out of a 5D3, then they will be capable of getting good video out of a 6D.

Both the 6D and 5D3 are good video cameras, but the superiority complex 5D3 users really are having a big old laugh to themselves when it comes to moire etc.


----------



## Policar (Jan 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Sometimes XDCAM just hasn't the colour depth.
> 
> Sometimes a Digibeta or HDCAM is just too conspicuous.
> 
> ...



I strongly disagree. The 5D Mark II remains a very nice camera, but its low light is poor, the codec has issues, and for wide shots in particular the aliasing can be terrible. Everyone knew this even while they were using it. For certain jobs it's just as good as a Mark III, and it's a viable camera for most purposes, but I feel confident walking in with a Mark III that I can deliver everything a client expects, except resolution on par with high end systems. With the Mark II, I'm worried about wide shots, low light, fabric, and hair. Projected large, there's a difference in wide shots in particular. Granted I found the upgrade from a t2i I owned (and 5Ds and 7Ds when available) to a 5D III to offer depreciating returns, but all the major problems (noise past 800 ISO, unacceptable amounts of skew, unacceptable aliasing, etc.) are tempered. Saving $1000 and getting a 6D for video and suffering many of the same problems seems foolish. That said, upgrading from a 5D Mark II might be very unnecessary depending on your needs. It sounds like your needs don't require the strengths a Mark III provides over a 6D or 5D Mark II. But there are people for whom the difference is getting a shot and not getting it. Technically all three cameras can produce visible aliasing, but look at the video posted above. Only one camera provides consistently acceptable results on fine patterns.

Furthermore, none of the camera systems you've listed (digibeta and go pro?) are comparable in any way to dSLRs and wouldn't be used for the same productions. Apples and oranges. Whereas the 6D and 5D III are like... apples and apples that are much better for certain types of video.

The F3, Epic, and Alexa are likewise suited for a different kind of production. It's not like they're even better or worse (in terms of IQ, they're better, though the Epic has mediocre low light), they're simply designed to be operated by more people on a bigger set, provide a more flexible image, and interface better with a traditional crew. They're designed mostly for TV production and theatrical features. dSLRs are more crash cams and web video. There are jobs for which a dSLR is much better than an Alexa, and even if you're lucky enough to be hired for narrative production, I doubt you'll encounter many shoots without a dSLR tucked away somewhere grabbing the odd insert.

I'm glad you're off in Alexa land ignoring us dSLR shooters who are off your map, but there are shooters who won't find a 6D useable and who will find a 5D Mark III great. There are also users for whom the difference will be virtually unnoticeable. For talking heads (and assuming no issues with moire in hair or fabric) both are just about as good. For wide shots, fast motion (skew and the ALL-I codec matter), and low light the difference is worth more than $1000.

To some people. Just as the $60,000 step up into Arri land is likely worth it to you! (And I'm in agreement, the Alexa is just the best thing going for narrative production, not that I can get hired to shoot on one.)


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jan 27, 2013)

My core point is that all cameras have issues, the op picked up moire, the 5d3 will moire, as has any ccd or cmos camera I've used in the right (wrong) situation.

And The reason I never bought a 5d2 is exactly ad you've described,
ML had the hack as I was buying, but the wide angles were better (effective focal length for focal length) the jellio far less and the depth of field more managable, out the box pal, full hd video preview, better stills performance for my shooting etc etc.

If the answer is to buy a new camera then the question is all wrong.

Can't fix moire on a 6d not going to be able to fix it on s 5d3, when it inevitably will occur.

In the middle of making the business case for a pair of c100's and I'm considering one for my personal freelance kit.

Not the best codec, but for the occasions something above 8bit is required I'll hire a samuri.

For this specific shot, of those tiles eith that lens at that setting, a 5d3 MAY have been better.

But that really is missing the point.


----------



## Policar (Jan 27, 2013)

I don't entirely agree. The moire on the 5D Mark III is dramatically less than on all other Canon dSLRs, excepting the 1DC. It's no worse than most video-specific cameras; the other dSLRs are MUCH worse. It samples the entire chip (through binning) whereas others skip pixel lines. Because of that, the low light and moire reduction are worlds better than the other Canon dSLRs and on par with what you'd see in a 100% magnified still. Worlds better.

Resolution, DR, color depth, etc. is the same. But moire is dramatically better. Whether it's an issue for you is up to you, but I've seen that sample video's results repeated time and time again any time brick walls or fabric or certain textures of hair enters the frame. For more organic, low frequency material the difference is imperceptible. If you shoot certain kinds of material frequently, the 5D Mark III might be the only Canon dSLR that's useable. I've shot on the Mark II, 7D, t2i, t3i, a few Nikons, the GH2, etc. and pretty extensively. (Also, the Epic, F3, and I've done a lot of post with Alexa footage, which is the best of all by far.) And the GH2 and Mark III are the only two dSLR-type cameras without aggravating levels of moire.

The C100's HDMI is 8 bit. Only the F3, Alexa, and Red offer 10 bit log or 14 bit linear or whatever. Its c log is also fake log with the highlights compressed wrong and over saturated, whereas Sony and Arri have true log curves. That said, it looks like a nice camera and a more worthy, versatile upgrade for videographers than any dSLR, the 1DC included.

It took me a lot of use to notice the differences between the Mark III and the other dSLRs I shoot with, but the difference is there. How much have you shot side-by-side with both? I promise if you shoot both with the right material (such as the test posted above) you'll quickly notice a difference that is dramatic and significant to many videographers. What do you do when faced with fabric that induces moire? You can't always tell the talent to change or throw it out of focus -- and the problem is often less visible in the viewfinder than in the footage itself.

All Canon dSLRs (excepting the 1DC) still have poor resolution and DR and grade poorly in post relative to true video cameras, granted, and I agree the C100 is a more worthy upgrade for video. By far. But just because you don't need moire reduction and low light doesn't mean others won't.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jan 27, 2013)

Read back in the thread, in my first answer I detail how to combat moire.

I'm sure the 5D3 is great, haven't had hands on yet, and of the DSLR's I'll take you at your informed word that it's one of the best. (haven't shot on the GH2 either to be fair, as a system it's just not on my map, wrong mount, would have to hire one to shoot on, nobody's renting, I'm confident in what I've already invested in, so I'm not going to buy another system)

My point is that buying a new camera to fix moire isn't really a fix. Or the OP really is better just buying an Alexa.

Again I'll refer you back to my first answer.

Thanks for the heads up on the c100's hdmi, that is worth knowing, seems the HDCAM will still be getting a dusting down now and then when 10bit is demanded, still the c100's are probably going to be the workhorses for the next couple of years, unless the blackmagic guys go to s35 sometime very soon. Doubtful.


----------



## Policar (Jan 27, 2013)

If it works for you it works for you, but I'd be scared to blur footage that's already so blurry, and I usually deliver to clients who do their own post. Not everyone will share your experience is all I'm saying. Not everyone can do their own post or devote that much time to it. For stills the 6D looks just fine, excepting autofocus maybe. For video I couldn't recommend it. Not when a used Mark II is cheaper and a new Mark III is materially better for video.

The C100 looks great. I don't know why people get so worked up about 8 bit versus 10 bit, but if 10 bit recording matters to you, look elsewhere. Clients don't care, and the C100 doesn't need a 10 bit wrapper since its DR is poor relative to the F3 and Alexa, anyway. Should be worlds beyond any Canon dSLR, likely even the 1DC, but I doubt it will approach the underrated F3 for highlight detail or tonality is all, even with an external recorder.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jan 27, 2013)

10 bit = grading, compositing.

Certainly not for delivery.

Half pixel is enough blur to kill worst jaggies.

Only go higher on very geometric subjects.

I have old crt and lcd tv for review before I deliver, for sd output half pixel gaussian blur makes massive difference, especially on crt where sharping can be horrific.


----------



## Policar (Jan 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> 10 bit = grading, compositing.
> 
> Certainly not for delivery.
> 
> ...



But the C100 realistically only has about 11 stops of latitude. Compressing them into 8 bits gives you 0.7 bits per stop. The Alexa has 14 stops. For real. In ten bits. That's .7 bits per stop.

All I'm saying is, assuming you use an external recorder with the C100, that's plenty of flexibility either way.

I'm glad your blur workflow works for you, but I don't post the footage I shoot for the most part. And I'd be scared to blur dSLR footage any more than it's already blurry. And I've encountered plenty of dSLR footage (like the link above of the brick walls) that would still exhibit horrible aliasing with that much blur.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jan 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> My core point is that all cameras have issues, the op picked up moire, the 5d3 will moire, as has any ccd or cmos camera I've used in the right (wrong) situation.
> 
> And The reason I never bought a 5d2 is exactly ad you've described,
> ML had the hack as I was buying, but the wide angles were better (effective focal length for focal length) the jellio far less and the depth of field more managable, out the box pal, full hd video preview, better stills performance for my shooting etc etc.
> ...



I somewhat agree with the superiority complex, because the 5D mark III really is that good. =P But seeing as how the 6D is priced much closer to the level of the 5D mark II. It all comes down to you get what you pay for. I own both, and I'm very much aware of their value. If you're doing pro video then you're most likely not using DSLRs, at least not as a main cam. I can understand using DSLRs for the cinema look, because it does look great to the general public and the 5D mark II proved that years ago. But you have to think really hard about where the 6D is priced and positioned. Only someone without common sense would think that the 6D should have the same amount of advantages as a 5D mark III. We have to accept it for what it is, and it's still great for the price point and not everyone cares about moire, mostly just us in this thread. Moire is more of a technical disadvantage than a creative one. If you've seen great videos by the 5D mark II and almost all the cameras that came after it, it's silly to make moire such a big deal, even now. There's obviously a price premium to avoid it, as long as you're still dedicated to using a Canon system. If you're good at what you do then you have to be ready to accept what limits you will have in the equipment you buy. Moire is not that big of a deal if you're not ready to make the bigger investment.


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 27, 2013)

For video, the 6D brings basically no advantage over a 5D2. And those can be found, used, for a lot less than you'd pay for a 6D. That would be my advice for anyone going for a full frame video DSLR and no budget for a 5D3 or D800.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Can't fix moire on a 6d not going to be able to fix it on s 5d3, when it inevitably will occur.



Moire rears up a LOT less on the 5D3 than on the 5D2 or even more so 6D.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> My point is that buying a new camera to fix moire isn't really a fix. Or the OP really is better just buying an Alexa.



Really? So one must either live with 5D2/6D/D800/etc. moire/aliasing or buy an Alexa?
Alexa is a bit pricey and bulky and you still needs a still body and lenses too if you also do that making it all even yet more bulky and expensive.

Sure the 5D3 is a bit soft and only 8 bit and this and that and is no match for an Alexa by any means but....

I've certainly found it to be a nice fix.
And the stills performance with the improved AF and fps and all are quite nice too compared to the 5D2/6D.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 27, 2013)

Policar said:


> I'm glad your blur workflow works for you, but I don't post the footage I shoot for the most part. And I'd be scared to blur dSLR footage any more than it's already blurry. And I've encountered plenty of dSLR footage (like the link above of the brick walls) that would still exhibit horrible aliasing with that much blur.



+1

And what about stuff like small lights moving in the wind that flicker on and off as they hit parts of the sensor not sampled, no blur filter will ever bring them back on the frames where they blinked out and even something as simple as ripples on a lake at sunset can turn into an aliased/moire mess that would require blurring the water to like no texture at all. And no amount of blur will change small spots that should be white or a certain color that have turned all sorts of random colors back to what they should be unless you go in and paint them back frame by frame or write a complex automate tool.

Again you can do lots of great stuff with a 5D2 and probably even a 6D, but the 5D3 is a noticeable improvement for lots of stuff all the same.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jan 27, 2013)

False dichotimy, from the very first post, and along the way, have I not advocated learning how to fix affected footage without resorting to a new camera, techniques that will help whether you are on a t3i or a 1dc?

Please read back.

I'm not suggesting anybody buy an alexa, c'mon seriously.

If the attitude is 'a 5d3 will fix it' my response is 'not always'.


----------



## Policar (Jan 28, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> False dichotimy, from the very first post, and along the way, have I not advocated learning how to fix affected footage without resorting to a new camera, techniques that will help whether you are on a t3i or a 1dc?
> 
> Please read back.
> 
> ...



But if the problem is unacceptable amounts of aliasing (enough that the average viewer would pick it out), then the 5D Mark III WILL fix it. A lot of us have shot extensively with the Mark III and other Canon dSLRs and virtually all of us have had the same experience. Every other Canon dSLR line skips and produces tons of aliasing (excepting the 1DC and the 1DX is apparently somewhere in-between), the 5D Mark III pixel bins and produces very subtle aliasing that's not noticeable to the average viewer even under the worst circumstances.

Moire is clearly not a problem for you -- you've found a way to deal with it in post that is acceptable both to you and to your clients. That's fine, and plenty of dSLR owners feel similarly. But for those of us who do find it problematic, we also find that the Mark III remedies it close enough to 100%. And I'm going to go ahead and recommend the camera over the Mark II and 6D on that basis. For someone considering upgrading I'm not sure it's worth it, though. There are bigger steps up for video.

Does the Mark III improve resolution, DR, etc.? Goodness no. And your C100 will be the much better camera and something Mark III owners will envy. But -- all that said -- it REALLY does fix the aliasing problem. Really. Like night and day. It's a real dichotomy: unacceptable moire in certain circumstances vs a normal looking picture. Virtually everyone who has actually used the camera -- and most of us who have used it don't particularly love it for video so it's not a bunch of fanboys spouting nonsense -- has had this experience.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jan 28, 2013)

NormanBates said:


> For video, the 6D brings basically no advantage over a 5D2. And those can be found, used, for a lot less than you'd pay for a 6D. That would be my advice for anyone going for a full frame video DSLR and no budget for a 5D3 or D800.



More video modes like 60 frames with options for ALL-i, cleaner image at high ISO, better screen for those who use zacuto z-finders and such, longer clip recording, lighter body for support systems, manual audio straight out of the box, lens correction, faster processing chip for less lag with startup and recording, easier download of footage straight to laptops for onsite (SDE) event type editing via SD card which are also cheaper than CF, and oh wait... It's in production now whereas the 5D mark II is now phased out which means more support and availability for accessories like grips and such. Sure sounds like no advantage to me ^^ 

At least here where I live, a used 5D mark II out of warranty from a non dealer but in acceptable condition is only 100$ less than a brand new 6D body, obviously with a warranty. Of course, even if it was an official dealer, you also run the risk of buying into a high shutter count. Even if you're a photographer, there is no reason to buy the 5D mark II now unless you need better build quality (not as big of a difference as you may think), 1/8000th sec shutter or 1/200 flash sync which not many will need. There are ways around the shutter speed differences like ND filters and stopped down apertures, not everyone shoots in the frikkin snow, and if you're shooting with a flash onboard you can always do HSS. Event shooters usually shoot around 1/50th sec indoors anyway.


----------



## dmosier (Jan 28, 2013)

The one thing I don't fully understand, and haven't really seen addressed explicitly by people, is how the 6D compares to the "lower tier" DSLRs like the 7D and 60D.

People always compare it to the 5D MkIII and say because it is "worse" it is "unusable." Well, of course it isn't as good as the MkIII; I should hope not for the price difference. But *is it as good as the 7D or 60D?* I have never heard anyone say those cameras are "unusable," or certainly not when they were fresh on the market.

So if the moire on the 6D is _no worse_ than it is on the 7D and 60D, but has much better noise levels at higher ISOs and is full frame (for those wanting that feature) I would say it is a perfectly acceptable, and possibly superior, camera for people to use.


----------



## dmosier (Feb 1, 2013)

So... nothing? ???

Nobody has used the 6D as well as the 7D/60D and can say whether or not the moire is the same, better, or worse?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Feb 2, 2013)

I haven't.

Can confirm that my 7D is great for certain kinds of video. In the usual way that DSLRs are all great for cetrain kind of video. And crap at others.

I can also confirm that of the dozens of video cameras I've used over the years, from BetacamSP through SX, DVCPRO, DVCAM, Digibeta, HDCAM, HDV XDCAM, DSLR I've encountered moire at some point to some degree on all of them.

A lot of folk are missing the point. No matter how resistant a camera is to moire, theres always something that will find the right pitch, usually at the worst moment. I like Canons solution: batter the phuck out of the resolving power by using tracing paper instead of an AA filter on the 5D3. Or by getting folk to buy into a system with much larger pixels like the C cameras.


----------



## Policar (Feb 3, 2013)

The gist of the above -- virtually all cameras alias -- is true, but the letter of it isn't. The Mark III has as much if not more resolution than the Mark II and 7D, and it doesn't have an overly strong AA filter, but it does appear soft next to the C series. The C series has the same pixel pitch as the Mark II.

Furthermore, if you can get the Mark III to exhibit aliasing, it's invisible unless you really search for it and then it's just minor stair-stepping, not moire. Way less than betacam or whatever, no comparison, and way way less than other Canon dSLRs. Just because the difference between 2% offensive and 98% offensive isn't 0% to 100% objectively (it is experientially) doesn't mean it's not a huge difference. I find the leap from the t2i to the Mark III to be more dramatic in terms of consistently getting a useable image than the leap from the Mark III to the C series. Others won't (they don't need low light and moire reduction), but many will. That said, interface-wise, the C series embarrasses dSLRs and even the F3 and Epic. For documentary work it's likely a home run if you can live with AVCHD.



dmosier said:


> So... nothing? ???
> 
> Nobody has used the 6D as well as the 7D/60D and can say whether or not the moire is the same, better, or worse?



The 6D hasn't been around that long and I doubt many people have upgraded from the 7D to the 6D to shoot video... but based on the first video here I'd say it's almost certainly a bit worse as regards moire than the 7D. I'd expect low light to be better.


----------



## titokane (Feb 4, 2013)

Hey, everybody! Time to make fun of me! 

Just had to trash my first shot for moire from the 6D. I know, I know, I just got done ranting about how I'd never had to trash a shot for moire, but here I am. Had a medium shot during a controlled shoot where a polo shirt started acting funny and somehow I didn't notice during production. Luckily, I had filmed coverage from a few more angles, so I was able to use those shots in the edit. Remember, always shoot more than you think you need 

I always get on my guys about not paying enough attention to focus, but if I had missed focus by just a little the moire wouldn't have shown up. Hilarious. 

So I still think the 6D is a great camera, and no more prone to moire than the 5D2, but just wanted to point out that if you get on the internet and get on a high horse about your lack of moire issues you will suddenly start having moire issues. 

Yep. Karma.


----------



## syder (Feb 4, 2013)

:'( Thanks for your honesty though Tito. Glad to hear you had coverage to hide the moire mess... 

Seriously though - Canon pitched the 5dm3 towards video users far more than the 6d. Deliberately. They listened to their existing DSLR users (5dm2 7d 60d) who had consistently complained that the no #1 and #2 issues with DSLR video were moire and anti-aliasing and so issued massive improvements on both fronts.

Don't listen to people posting who admit never to having used a 5dm3 but also claim it wont help with any moire issues because frankly they have no idea what they're talking about. 

A 5dm3 wont suddenly make you a far better cinematographer than you were before (or if you have a 6d), but you sure won't have the same kind of moire issues you do with any other Canon DSLR (except a 1DX).


----------



## titokane (Feb 4, 2013)

syder said:


> A 5dm3 wont suddenly make you a far better cinematographer than you were before (or if you have a 6d), but you sure won't have the same kind of moire issues you do with any other Canon DSLR (except a 1DX).



The 5D3 has a sensor purpose-built to downscale. It has a horizontal resolution of 3840, which is exactly twice the size of 1080p HD. Once the sensor is cropped for video it's essentially a QFHD sensor being downscaled to 1080p -- no problem.

The 1DX seems to downscale with its beefy processors, which could be why the video seems to look a little sharper but also has faint moire. 

The 6D (and all the other Canon DSLRs right now) have neither the right sensor resolution nor a strong enough processor (apparently) to downscale well, so they just take the easy way out and line-skip, causing interference patterns. I would love for Canon (or ML) to do some firmware magic to make it downscale better, but I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Feb 5, 2013)

> Don't listen to people posting who admit never to having used a 5dm3 but also claim it wont help with any moire issues because frankly they have no idea what they're talking about.



If this is directed at me, then it's a mis-fire. I've never doubted that the 5D3 exhibits less moire, although I can't verify this through experience, however anybody who says a 5D3 exhibits no moire and never will _frankly they have no idea what they are talking about_.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 5, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> > Don't listen to people posting who admit never to having used a 5dm3 but also claim it wont help with any moire issues because frankly they have no idea what they're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is directed at me, then it's a mis-fire. I've never doubted that the 5D3 exhibits less moire, although I can't verify this through experience, however anybody who says a 5D3 exhibits no moire and never will _frankly they have no idea what they are talking about_.



Agreed. Moire is imposable to remove in all situations no matter what the camera is. It's something the human eye sees natively too. It's not just an artifact of A/D conversion.


----------



## syder (Feb 5, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> > Don't listen to people posting who admit never to having used a 5dm3 but also claim it wont help with any moire issues because frankly they have no idea what they're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is directed at me, then it's a mis-fire. I've never doubted that the 5D3 exhibits less moire, although I can't verify this through experience, however anybody who says a 5D3 exhibits no moire and never will _frankly they have no idea what they are talking about_.



Nice strawman. Having admitted to not having actually used a 5Dm3 you earlier came out with 'the superiority complex 5D3 users really are having a big old laugh to themselves when it comes to moire etc.'

So apparently we're having a laugh by having a camera whereby moire is not the issue is is with every other Canon DSLR. Except you now now don't doubt that it exhibits less moire (meaning that in most situations - certainly every shoot I've had with a 5dm3 - moire is not something you need to take action to address).

The difference between 5Dm2 (and 7D 60D 600D and 550D - i haven't used a 6D) and 5Dm3 is massive when it comes to moire. Not 100% and 0 but enough to make a huge difference for people who actually use the cameras, rather than those who just bitch about them on the Internet.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Feb 5, 2013)

Great. Lang may yer lum reek moire free.

As for you jibe about actually using the cameras???


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 6, 2013)

syder said:


> The difference between 5Dm2 (and 7D 60D 600D and 550D - i haven't used a 6D) and 5Dm3 is massive when it comes to moire. Not 100% and 0 but enough to make a huge difference for people who actually use the cameras, rather than those who just bitch about them on the Internet.



I still think that in scenes where Moire isn't an issue, the 5D2 looks better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 6, 2013)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> syder said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between 5Dm2 (and 7D 60D 600D and 550D - i haven't used a 6D) and 5Dm3 is massive when it comes to moire. Not 100% and 0 but enough to make a huge difference for people who actually use the cameras, rather than those who just bitch about them on the Internet.
> ...



I don't know about that, the 5D2 has almost 2 stops worse SNR and once you sharpen the 5D3 files in post....
Aliasing and moire come up pretty easily too.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > syder said:
> ...



5D2 seems(to me) to carry more detail in some shots, and have better color. Basically, i feel like i can confuse 5d2 footage with the big boys(Alexa, Red), or even film sometimes. On the other hand, i feel can pick the 5D3 out of a lineup almost every time. 

I always figured that it was because the 5D2 came out before they had a cinema line, which the 5D3 was clearly nerfed to protect. 

But i agree that based on the stats, the 5D3 should dominate. 




I don't know about that, the 5D2 has almost 2 stops worse SNR and once you sharpen the 5D3 files in post....
Aliasing and moire come up pretty easily too.


----------



## dmosier (Feb 7, 2013)

Based purely on footage watched online, and not personal experience, I may have come to the conclusion that the 6D out of the box is not very usable for video. However, this morning I saw this article about an AA filter that improves it quite a bit.

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/canon-6d-mosaic-engineering-vaf-6d-moire-aliasing/

Of note is the fact that the image looked noticeably darker with the filter on, but I also don't know whether or not the people shooting the video took this into account and just shot it both off and on and never bothered adjusting the aperture.


----------



## syder (Feb 7, 2013)

dmosier said:


> Based purely on footage watched online, and not personal experience, I may have come to the conclusion that the 6D out of the box is not very usable for video.



Sigh. What exactly do you mean by not very usable? As in you literally can't use it? Perhaps your comment about out of the box alludes to a situation before you've attached a lens to the camera (in which case - yes you wouldn't get usable video)? Or as in the 6D suffers from the same issues as the 5dm2/7d/60d/600d in terms of moire and aliasing?

Because plenty of people made stunning work with all those other cameras - the video is a long way from unusable. Yes you have be careful to work around the camera's weaknesses in particular circumstances. And yes if given the choice between a camera that you have to do this with and another body where the same issues are far better managed (5dm3 or 1dx) then choosing the latter (more expensive) model might be worthwhile - especially if you're using the kit to make a living as a videographer.

But calling the 6D's video not very usable isn't very true.


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Feb 7, 2013)

It's funny, I'm editing a piece right now that is a mix of 5DII and III footage, and the aliasing and moire are *shocking* everytime I pull up a 5DII shot in comparison. One of the shooters on the piece commented that the 5dIII 720p looks about exactly the same as the 5DII 1080p in terms of quality.


----------



## dmosier (Feb 8, 2013)

syder said:


> dmosier said:
> 
> 
> > Based purely on footage watched online, and not personal experience, I may have come to the conclusion that the 6D out of the box is not very usable for video.
> ...



You really don't need to insult my intelligence by asking if I was referring to whether the camera had a lens on it or not. By "not very usable" I mean exactly that. I wouldn't use it. Or not a stock, out of the box 6D as opposed to one that had an AA filter installed such as the one showcased in the video link I provided. Did you look at the video in that link? There wasn't a single thing it was pointed at that didn't strobe like crazy. I have probably shot a few hundred hours of footage with MkIIs, 7Ds, and 60Ds in both narrative and documentary settings and never gotten footage affected by moire and aliasing like that.

In page 3 of this thread I specifically asked if anyone out there had experience shooting on those cameras AND the 6D and could comment exactly on how the moire and aliasing compared. Nobody did. I would still prefer to hear from someone who has. Absent that, I am only able to look at footage online (not ideal) and draw my own conclusions. If you have personal experience that would shed light on this for me I would love to hear it.


----------



## iP337 (Feb 11, 2013)

dmosier said:


> syder said:
> 
> 
> > dmosier said:
> ...



Alright; I know as much as you about the 6D's supposed morie issue, but that link is SELLING a product that promises to help morie so I think it is very very very likely that they purposely found a shot that would moire then turned the in-camera sharpness all the way up followed by a test with the filter on and the sharpness turned all the way down. 

I sincerely doubt the 6D has worse aliasing and morie then the 5D2 or 7D, (how would Canon even go about adding extra morie artifacts?) All these 6D has extra morie videos are far more likely user error where the user doesn't know how to turn down the in-camera sharpness.


----------



## dmosier (Feb 11, 2013)

Actually, that is a very good point that I had not considered. Obviously, they have an vested interest in showing how much better it is with their filter than without and tweaking the camera to make it look as poor as possible would only help them. That just reinforces the fact that it is hard to judge a camera without getting your hands on one as opposed to only have online videos to judge. So I guess I will reserve final judgement on the 6D for now.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Feb 15, 2013)

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/canon-5d-mark-iii-freezing-video-capture-petition/

Maybe I should start a thread called '5d3 not usable for shooting video'?


----------



## Policar (Feb 15, 2013)

You certainly could, although it's the first I've heard of that problem.

I know personally a fair number of people who consider the Epic borderline unusable. I considered the non-MX Red essentially unusable. Even with the Alexa we've gotten a lot of bad bugs. "Useable" says quite a lot in today's age of buggy computers-in-a-camera-box. I wouldn't take this so personally!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Feb 15, 2013)

Other threads pre-dating link on this very forum!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Feb 15, 2013)

Policar said:


> I wouldn't take this so personally!



Not taking it personally at all. Just got tore a bit to shreds for suggesting that a 5D3 would ever under any circumstances have the potential to exhibit moire. You could buy six 5D3's for the price of my work ENG camera, which has occasionally exhibited moire. 

Thank god for the tools to fix it.

The problem with the land of milk and honey is curdling and bee's.


----------

