6D not usable for shooting video?

[Policar]

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'.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

  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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Great.  Lang may yer lum reek moire free.

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

[HurtinMinorKey]

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]

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.

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.