Gear Talk > EOS Bodies - For Video

I just can't comprehend some of the negativity on the 5d3...

(1/8) > >>

Ponte506:
I can promise you this isn't a complaint, I'm just thoroughly confused at what people who are looking for a way to make short films/documentaries/etc. have to worry about when it comes to the 5d Mk. III when we already have major production examples of its quality in both Hollywood and Television.

I am as new as they come in regards to DSLR's and pro-sumer cinematography, so perhaps I'm being severely naive, but if we already have proof of the pro quality that the 5DII was able to produce, what's with the "regretting this purchase" air that I'm seeing from so many people?

If any of the doubters have seen the "House M.D." episode "Help Me", it was entirely shot on the 5d MKII with Cannon Primes and a few zooms.  Even while watching a sub-par quality rip on the internet of the episode, I could not believe how filmic the episode looked.  They weren't using $3k Cine lenses, they weren't using some crazy PL rigged mounts; they were using relatively standard glass.  On top of that, for anyone that's seen "Act of Valor" can also see a lot of the amazing footage the 5d2 was able to conjure up, most ALL of the first person helmet cam shots as well as a notable scene in which one of the main villains is observing a warehouse full of bomb-makers. 

I think a lot of people don't realize just how much post makes a difference.  While I understand that House and Act of Valor were shot using studio lighting equipment (just like any major production), why is there so much flak being shot at the 5d3 when it's predecessor churned out filmic quality pieces that I described?  Is that notion being completely ignored for the sake of comparing spreadsheets with sensor sizes, codecs, and other specs?  It's almost as bad as the PC Overclocking community, disregarding well established products such as cooling radiators and water blocks just because something else came out that beats it by 1 degree Celsius.  I'm relatively certain that everyone here can understand NO DSLR can match a $200k studio grade film camera, but once again, given produced examples there really should be nothing to complain about.  Like I said, I'm pretty damn new to the DSLR market, but this is just my two cents. 

Any thoughts? 

riogrande100:
Agreed

psolberg:
As I said in another thread, we need to manage our expectations. What you say is correct but lets keep in mind a few things:

1) the 5DII had no competition so it was very easty to be the best at anything they did. This elevated its status beyond what its successor could achieve because there are now many alternatives and the market has opened in the high end with the REDs and sony FS100, C300 and others. The 5DIII simply can't repeat that success because the market has changed a lot. DSLR video is now a standard commodity and even affordable bodies like the GH2 + hack, will deliver quality video beyond what the 5DII/III do.

2) At release, 5DmkII's shallow dof at an affordable price was seen as the next big thing, and it was. Today you have a lot of choices for dslr video, often delivering equal or better quality to the 5DII/III. That shallow DOF look is no longer considered revolutionary or unique just by itself. You can't just shoot footage and get the instant "wow" anymore just because it was shot @ f/1.8. More advanced codecs, true 1080p resolution, and overcrank  is where the industry is going. Nobody is standing still. Given the 5D line is primarily a still camera, it is at a dissadvantage from the start to the dedicated gear we see today and we'll see in the next decade. The sun is setting on the HDSRL revolution and it is unrealistic to expect the 5DIII to change the world the way the mkII did.

3) Hollywood is moving on from clumsy dslrs to dedicated video cameras that offer the same benefits and better quality and features. Sure they cost more, but the budgets are there when you consider how much is to shoot with real film and panavision or ultra high end sony equipment. Canon, Red, Sony, all know this. It makes no sense for them to try to be jacks of all trades but masters of none. These companies are out to make the best video cameras possible. HDRLS desinged for wedding and sport shooting under $4K, just aren't going to be able to keep up.

In summary, the 5DIII remains a great camera and without doubt it is capable of a lot in the right hands. But that is the case with just about every camera these days and this means the 5DIII won't stand out as much. If the reason peple are negative is because they wanted to see another video revolution from a still camera, they will need to bring down their expectations a lot from now on.

Now, you can dissagree, but the 5DmkII glory days are beyind us and this is obvious in the reception to this new camera. The world is different. It is time to accept it and move on. 5DIII, D800, GH2, whatever. 

Christian_Stella:
You definitely have to take the 5dIII smack talking with a grain of salt. 95% of these people counting the lines of resolution are not actually filming anything of substance with their camera to begin with.

There was a movie called Silent House that just came out. As a movie, it's awful... But I saw it in theaters because it's probably the first wide release movie shot 100% on the 5d.  It looked pretty amazing on the big screen, when it was in focus. Their focus puller was atrocious!

Then there's an indie movie called Tiny Furniture that's pretty great all around. It just came out Criterion Collection.

With all cameras it is definitely about how you use them and with movies, no camera can save a bad story, bad acting, or bad sound. 

As someone who has spent an entire year working on a feature film (The Battery) shot on the 5d2, I can understand the resolution gripes. When so many people are working so hard on something for so long and you are in control of the picture, you really want it to look the best it can possibly look. When we shot last year, I really didn't have any other options, so I have no regrets. But I will have to think long and hard about whether I'm renting a C300 for the next movie.  I will say though that our crew just got together and watched just a 720p sample output of our final cut without color grading on a 16 foot screen with DLP projection and it was awesome.

When the 5d3 was announced, I made the decision that id rather be great at filming with the 5d than horrible shooting on the Red Scarlet as some people are tempted to jump to for resolution. I have been quite happy with my decision so far. Noise was my biggest problem with the 5d2 footage on my movie, so I am simply astounded by the leap that the 3 is in that respect.  Not that the 2 was bad by any means in low light, it's just that we shot an entire movie in the woods away from electricity with no way to run a generator as it would have ruined the sound. 

dilbert:
So...

Look at the difference between the Nikon D700 and Nikon D800.

Now look at the difference between the Canon 5D2 and the Canon 5D3.

If Nikon can improve their camera as much as they did between 2008 and 2012, why can't Canon?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version