Canon EOS 5D Mark III vs Blackmagic Design Cinema Camera

[weekendshooter]

<snip>

It's definitely not a perfect camera (but there isn't really such a thing), but  I'm still interested.  I may end up opting for the MFT mount instead of the EF.  I'd probably end up shooting in 1080p ProRes most of the time, but true 1080p is still going to look much better than the 5D3.

I'd read something about them coming out with a different mount...the MFT.

What exactly is a MFT mount...and why would you want it over the EF? If not the EF, you'd not be able to use all your Canon glass...which is good stuff, no?

MFT = micro 4/3. These cameras are going to be operated mostly manually anyway, so choosing mft and then getting an mft -> eos adapter will allow for the same operation as native eos but with the added possibility of using 4/3 glass, which has some neat choices for that sensor format. That and EOS lenses are generally not optimized for video, while I think m4/3 has a few that are.

EDIT: in addition to simply being able to use an EOS adapter, the short flange distance of mft allows for the use of an adapter to almost any mount imaginable, so that's why it would be the preferred choice. The longer flange distance of EOS limits the choices of adapters compared to mft.

[verysimplejason]

<snip>

It's definitely not a perfect camera (but there isn't really such a thing), but  I'm still interested.  I may end up opting for the MFT mount instead of the EF.  I'd probably end up shooting in 1080p ProRes most of the time, but true 1080p is still going to look much better than the 5D3.

I'd read something about them coming out with a different mount...the MFT.

What exactly is a MFT mount...and why would you want it over the EF? If not the EF, you'd not be able to use all your Canon glass...which is good stuff, no?

MFT = micro 4/3. These cameras are going to be operated mostly manually anyway, so choosing mft and then getting an mft -> eos adapter will allow for the same operation as native eos but with the added possibility of using 4/3 glass, which has some neat choices for that sensor format. That and EOS lenses are generally not optimized for video, while I think m4/3 has a few that are.

EDIT: in addition to simply being able to use an EOS adapter, the short flange distance of mft allows for the use of an adapter to almost any mount imaginable, so that's why it would be the preferred choice. The longer flange distance of EOS limits the choices of adapters compared to mft.

I think your only problem with MFT is that if you need a very wide angle, you can't match that of an FF but on the other hand, I don't think anybody shoots that much wide angle anyway. 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Should make that test again and change 5D3 to C100.

That would be even more embarrassing for Canon.

The only thing the c100 would win on would be rolling shutter.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The funniest thing is that if they did the 5D3 right, it would have probably been the biggest selling large sensor video hybrid camera in history. For every C300 they sold, they would have sold 100 5D3s if it was done right.

But now as it stands, nobody really cares about their cameras for video and the 5D3 has very lukewarm sales for the video crowd (not even close to the 5D2 or the 7D). Not only did they lose huge amounts of sales, they lost a huge amount of respect from their video customers and once people leave, it's hard to get them back.

For me, I bought a Sony FS700 and I absolutely LOVE it. Great camera for the price. It's been about 1 1/2 years since I've bought anything Canon, and that's not going to change until they make something worth buying.

yup

[preppyak]

It's almost all mid-tones. Is that the end target, or from that they can make something really nice?

That's the point of a more flat profile, you can always add contrast, but taking it away is where you introduce noise, banding, etc. In the Canon shot, you'll never really recover the blown highlights by the sign or the crushed shadows, unless you are working with really high end gear. With the Black Magic, I could easily re-create that Canon shot if I liked the look...can't do the opposite though.

That means the BM is way more versatile. If you're doing high-key TV work, it produces a nice image with less light (and less light is cheaper). If youre doing grittier work, you can introduce that contrast while being able to keep details. That versatility is everything, because its rare to shoot the exact same video style over and over.

[dirtcastle]

It's almost all mid-tones. Is that the end target, or from that they can make something really nice?

That's the point of a more flat profile, you can always add contrast, but taking it away is where you introduce noise, banding, etc. In the Canon shot, you'll never really recover the blown highlights by the sign or the crushed shadows, unless you are working with really high end gear. With the Black Magic, I could easily re-create that Canon shot if I liked the look...can't do the opposite though.

That means the BM is way more versatile. If you're doing high-key TV work, it produces a nice image with less light (and less light is cheaper). If youre doing grittier work, you can introduce that contrast while being able to keep details. That versatility is everything, because its rare to shoot the exact same video style over and over.

Well-put!

[NormanBates]

^ that

[daveswan]

I was wondering how I was going to finance a 5DIII then the BMC hit. Now I'll be going with that and doing my photography with my 5DI. I'll probably sell my 550D for peanuts.

[risc32]

 While i don't think that one shot of the city at night looks any more like reality than the canon shot, i do understand what you guys are saying. thanks.

one thing though. the guy starts out by saying that the 5dmk3 is better for high iso work, then doesn't show any samples.  at what iso does the BMC start to fall down, and how far?

-daveswan- now it looks like you'll have to finance a super computer, and a BMC.