« Last post by Tinky on Today at 07:17:15 AM »
I would be careful about that kind of incendary [sic] libellous [sic] post, which makes no sense.
I may have been a bit over the top, and to be honest, it's not like I can 100% blame Canon for doing it, as it would make certain business sense--if most of their competitors did the same thing (which they certainly didn't). But libelous? Perhaps the laws are different where you live, but in my country in order to prove libel against a public entity, the statement must not only have caused harm, be provably false, and was made with disregard for the facts and without adequate research (which I will argue is not the case), but, for a public entity like Canon, it must also be made with the intent to do harm, which it was not--it is aimed to either spur Canon into action, or else advise people not to put up with them any longer.
Now, on the other hand, a classic example of a libelous statement is accusing someone of a crime on a false basis, and since I am a private individual, I would not have to prove malice (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one). However, I assure you I have no interest in doing so given I try to value an honest debate and a collective search for the truth rather than petty bickering, values which I hope we both share. In that spirit, allow me to respond to your claims.Why did they even bother putting on headphone jacks if they are so hell-bent on crippling the 5D3. Why give various GoP patterns if they are so keen to force every Philip Bloom wannabe onto C series cameras?
Those are small though still useful upgrades (though the headphone jack should have been there from the beginning). But they had to add something to make it somewhat of an upgrade on the video side from the 5DIII, and pointing out the few things they did add just distracts from everything they leave out relative to the competition. Sure, Canon could get away with it just fine and few would complain--IF their competition did the same. But Sony, Panasonic, Blackmagic, and even old boy Nikon didn't stand still. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter if they have new GoP settings if every one of them looks a lot softer and mushier compared to the competition.It's primarily a DSLR. For Stills. The AA filter is designed for stills. This is the weakest link in the 5D3 chain as far as video goes. If you want to hack a 5D3 properly, have the stock AA removed and replaced with quartz glass. ML can only go so far.
The OLPF does make a difference, sure; I've read about people who tried it. But if that really is the main reason the 5D3's 1080p output looks worse than typical 720p, not to mention any of its competitors, why is it that you can get breathtaking results with ML Raw video, at least equalizing the playing field with its brethren, if not more so. And why is it that those competitors (GH4, NX1, recent Nikons, Sony A7, etc.). as much "still" cameras as the 5DIII, can produce significantly more detailed video with their built-in codecs and processing, yet still maintain excellent stills quality as well? Do all these "still" cameras have "video" OLPFs? Or is something else at play? No, I don't think Canon is deliberatly going in and turning on some "mushy video" setting in the firmware, but clearly their processing pipeline is not delivering on the goods like most of the competition.Even a hacked 5D3 cannot compete with the C series. These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters.
Not sure where you are getting the idea of a "hacked" 5D3; i.e. one running modified firmware. If you are referring to ML, the latter is more properly a firmware addon, it runs on top of the Canon code without altering or replacing it at all. To compare it to smartphones, a "hack" would be somewhere between jailbreaking an iPhone and making it run Andriod, while ML is more like running an app from a non-officially-supported appstore. Camera companies are, in some ways, acting like Apple before they opened up the iPhone to developers. Should Canon officially tell everyone to use ML, without any kind of disclaimer or warning? No. Does it involve some amount of risk and complexity for less advanced users? Sure, but in the appstore paradigm they can choose whether to install it, after reading the disclaimer. And I've seen more cases where ML has been used to recover a supposedly dead camera than "brick" a camera itself.These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters.
I certainly have to agree with your point here, that no matter how good the 5D3's IQ in RAW with ML (which matches up surprisingly well with the C300), the form factor is not that of a dedicated "video camera" which has some significant disadvantages for "video" style shooting. That's why I keep my old-style, small sensor three chip AC160A around, and it still gets plenty of use (as I would hope it would, considering I paid as much for it used as the 5DIII goes for new these days). Due to the disadvantages you cite, I would not really consider it for everyday B-roll shooting.
However, for low- and mid-level filmmakers (and those aspiring to be), with RAW video it can be a great tool--not a perfect tool, but an incredible value for those who can't afford a C300. 8 MP or 22MP chip, the 5DIII's raw output stacks up very well with the C300 and even in some respects the 1DC--though even the old GH2 isn't all that far behind in pure detail, "still" camera or not. Those folks are mostly going to be using an external recorder or at least an external pre-amp for audio anyway, and have plenty of time to screw the right ND filter onto their lens beforehand. Not sure what the advantage of having a higher "base" ISO is for video, unless there is something I'm missing or my knowledge of the inner workings of CMOS chips are way off. And "interlace codecs for TV work"? Again not an issue for the target audience, (and won't be for anyone 10-20 years from now) and even if not, is 30 PsF really that bad? (Though it is of course trivial to pulldown 1080i30 from 1080p60 shot by most of the competition and the 7DII, not to mention all those small sensor cameras for many years now.)Yep. Your argument stacks up less and less the more you look at the facts.
Unless my argument is "Canon should have made the 5DIII into the perfect high end television camera" I'm not sure how much the statements presented really weaken it.Surely a 2K version of a C500 is a C300? The 5D3 matches the C300? Close. But no cigar. If you need 50i. (Which the broadcasters are looking for.) If you want hassle free audio.
Not exactly, since the C300 can't shoot RAW internally or externally, only XF (50 Mbps MPEG-2 4:2:2) internally or up to uncompressed 4:2:2 externally. Plus, it can't even shoot 1080p60 like all the new Nikon "still cameras," not to mention all those small sensor camcorders. Does the C300 have a slight edge in sharpness/picture quality SootC? Quite possibly. when it comes to flexibility in the grading suite, 5D3 RAW is unbeatable. Plus, the 5DIII's larger sensor and possibility of recording using the full sensor area make it very difficult to beat when coupled with anamorphic lenses.
Hassle-free audio? How much more "hassle" really is it to plug your XLRs into your external recorder rather than your main camera and remember to press play? Considerably less "hassle" then having wireless mic receivers or XLR cables dangling off your camera, methinks. Sure, having good onboard audio is critical for ENG style shoots and even a lot of documentary production, not to mention day to day corporate work. That's why I'm not giving up on my AC160A anytime soon. But again, those sorts of folks are the ones likely to either have the budget for a C300, be using their 3-chip small sensor ENG camera, or have the time to deal with it.Canon have a chimera product with video SLRs. Their DSLRs can do great things, even the humble T3i in the right hands. I would have bought a 5D3 but I'm probably going to get a c100 and ninja instead. Which is more on a par with a c300 than a 5D3 will ever be.
Undoubtedly true; recently I saw a short film shot with a 550D that got featured on various sites. Sure it's possible to avoid the aliasing/moire and stylistically mitigate the softness. But why force us to deal with these problems when the other manufacturers and Canon itself demonstrates that they can do much, much better for the same price? I've heard a lot of good things about the C100 + Ninja combo, and it seems it may beat an internally recorded C300 since they use the same sensor. And for many uses like the ones mentioned above, a C100 (+ Ninja) offers a good deal more in usability than a 5DIII, and for not too much more money. But for cinematic productions, can it beat the 5D3 in IQ when there's grading involved? Sure doesn't look like it.Canon aren't crippling their DSLRs. Did you read the bit on the ML page about the warranty? You are using your camera beyond specification. Fair do's. Lots of folk are without apparant problem.
Again, I don't mean "crippling" as in introducing deliberate softness within the image pipeline, but instead refusing to add features in software that would not take a huge amount of effort to greatly improve the camera's suitability for video, which due to Canon's hesitation ML has taken into their own hands. The camera is perfectly capable of doing better--ML is the proof of that. Even if RAW video is too much for the camera to handle (And many, many people have found that it is not), even proper 1080p output and video features in software (better audio control, actually informative live view displays, focusing and exposure aids, RAW histogram/zebras/spotmeter/ETTR, etc) are missing and Canon refuses to add them like many other manufacturers have.I think they are trying to suit too many markets. In use a C series or even an unfashionable ENG camera often makes 100x more sense that a tiny DSLR hiding inside a mecanno set on a plinth.
Not sure about the "mecanno set on a plinth" part but I certainly agree that the 5DIII is not and could never be suitable for many purposes--like I say, that's what my unfashionable AC160A is for. I'm not at all saying its right for you or me, or could be if Canon let it. But for cinematic style work, the 5D3 has considerable potential that Canon is not--or is refusing to--exploit, a fact which its competitors are certainly taking advantage of. Of course, Canon isn't really trying at all, while ML has pushed the bounds past what we ever thought was possible for both stills and video.And your bit about not competing with Sony or Panasonic or Nikon. So what. Most folk don't need or want 4K yet & none of them take EF lenses.
Funny how I just remember you saying...There are a couple of problems with the a7s. No internal 4k recording.and I responded thatPersonally I've considered 4K on consumer/prosumer cams to be mostly just the new 3D, at least for my purposes. In any case, I wasn't talking about 4K, just basic 1080p that looks like 1080p and not upscaled 720p at best. Lock in to the EF lenses (which are fantastic, I can certainly feel you there) is certainly a big thing keeping people in the Canon system, along with ML. But that doesn't help people just starting out in photography or video, Metabones and the like are getting better all the time (and with the Speed Booster, in some ways better than on the original Canon camera) and quite a few cameras now, even the $999 BMPCC, (not to mention the Axiom Beta) are offering EF mounts, removing a lot of the lock-in and removing one of the remaining reasons people have for sticking with Canon bodies. Plus, if Canon bodies suck there will be extra imputes to develop more and better lenses for other mounts.
We are just a *bit* off topic so I think I'll wrap it up here, and I apologize for the thread hijack Hawk. But if you don't believe me (and really, why should you) feel free to read, for example, one of Andrew Reid's articles over at EOSHD which make a lot of similar points. including, quite poignantly, "If it wasn’t for Magic Lantern I’d have sold my Canon gear." Sound familiar?The only reason people use them anymore for video is ML.I've even seen at least one article over at DPReview, which usually deals with "still" camera issues, that made exactly the same points.
So, to conclude? No, I don't think the 5D3, ML'd or not, improved or not, is or should be a perfect choice for everyone in terms of video. Quite the contrary, as I've said from the beginning. But I do think Canon could do a hell of a lot more to make it stand up to the competition and be much more useful to the people who've always wanted to love it, rather than trying to protect sales of their Cinema EOS line. In the end, the people this is really hurting aren't going to buy a C-something rather than a 5D3, they'll increasingly be ending up with someone other than Canon entirely.
Go ahead and sue me. Libel actions always end well. For lawyers at least.
I have a theory: Anybody working at a level that requires uncompressed video isn't wasting their time with a 5d3.
Lots of people not thinking for themselves. I'll get on with being a cameraman, I'll let them get on with being DoPs for terrible short films that 5 folk watch on vimeo.