6D or 5D Mark III. For video. Which one?

[TPLS]

Hello guys and gals.

In last couple of weeks I was trying to decide which camera to buy. 6D or 5D Mark III.

My primary job is filmmaking (music videos, short movies, documentary, webisodes, etc.).

It's easy to say, let's go and buy Mark III, but at this very moment I need to think about price and all. In a way, is it really good to put that amount of money (difference is around 1300$) in Mark III or maybe 6D is just enough for the most of work I will do.

And for how long I can be satisfied with those cameras? (in a way, I could work with those bodies in next 3-5 years...)

Cheers!

 

[Policar]

The 6D, while fantastic for stills, is a difficult choice for video exclusively due to the very bad aliasing. The 5D is much better in this regard, though otherwise similar.

I would order a C100:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/889545-REG/Canon_EOS_C100_EF_Cinema.html

While it is more expensive, the upgrades it already contains make it a better value proposition than the 5D.

None of these cameras have good high frame rate or 4k, which some believe certain clients will want. I'm not so sure.

As someone who owns both the 5D and C100, and has used every other major camera system (excepting the F65 and Amira), I would put the C100 closer to the Alexa than to the 5D and with better ergonomics for a single user than any other camera system. It's GREAT. But it doesn't do slow motion or 4k, however the 1080p image is the sharpest of any camera currently available, including the Alexa and Red, whereas other Canon has the softest 1080p I've seen (but good colors), which measures closer to 720p and "feels" more like SD in many cases.

Pick one up used; the MKII is not much better and was just released. I can't recommend this camera highly enough, although the learning curve is a bit more than the dSLRs.

 

[dgatwood]

Hello guys and gals.

In last couple of weeks I was trying to decide which camera to buy. 6D or 5D Mark III.

My primary job is filmmaking (music videos, short movies, documentary, webisodes, etc.).

It's easy to say, let's go and buy Mark III, but at this very moment I need to think about price and all. In a way, is it really good to put that amount of money (difference is around 1300$) in Mark III or maybe 6D is just enough for the most of work I will do.

And for how long I can be satisfied with those cameras? (in a way, I could work with those bodies in next 3-5 years...)

Cheers!

In terms of video quality, the 6D's downsampling algorithm is sorely lacking, so it exhibits considerable moiré problems. The 5D Mark III is much better in that regard.

With that said, IMO, using a DSLR for video is a bit like using a Corvette for package delivery. Yeah, you can do it, but it isn't the right tool for the job, because in some ways it greatly exceeds the requirements, and in other ways, it falls ridiculously short. From my perspective, DSLRs are for video what my iPhone is for stills—the camera that I use when I already have it with me and wasn't planning to shoot [video/stills].

For example:

• Autofocus while recording video is sorely lacking in both cameras, falling way behind any number of other pieces of gear.
• The choices of lenses is fine for cinematography-style shooting (in-your-face), but isn't nearly as good for traditional field work (there's only one superzoom, and it is huge).
• The lack of any zoom lenses (except ancient, adapted lenses) with a traditional manual iris ring makes video shooting substantially more cumbersome.
• The audio hardware is seriously subpar, offering no XLR inputs, phantom power, manual level controls, limiter, or any of the other sorts of features you'd expect in equipment designed for video.

Canon makes some great prosumer camcorders that IMO will run rings around any Canon DSLR for video purposes. If your main use is video, I would steer you in that direction, rather than towards a DSLR.

And if you need 4K, I'd steer you towards a C500, or towards waiting for the C300 Mark II....

 

[TeT]

5DIII, 6D not a good AF video body...

 

[WillThompson]

? Is there a good reason to NOT recommend the 7DmkII?

Just curious.

Thanks, Will T.

 

[Policar]

? Is there a good reason to NOT recommend the 7DmkII?

Just curious.

Thanks, Will T.

Based on my experience with the 70D, the 7D II should have great AF, but suffer from all the dSLR issues (bad sound, aliasing, no focus peaking or punch-in for focus, no good pre-amps, no waveform monitor, poor codec, not great color science, aliasing, etc.) as well as being APS-C with frame-skipping resulting in relatively poor sensitivity at extreme ISOs.

Should be fine if you can figure out how to get good sound and your client doesn't care about a bit of aliasing and softness. But the C100 (or FS7 if you have the money) should be soo much better.

 

[TPLS]

The 6D, while fantastic for stills, is a difficult choice for video exclusively due to the very bad aliasing. The 5D is much better in this regard, though otherwise similar.

I would order a C100:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/889545-REG/Canon_EOS_C100_EF_Cinema.html

While it is more expensive, the upgrades it already contains make it a better value proposition than the 5D.

None of these cameras have good high frame rate or 4k, which some believe certain clients will want. I'm not so sure.

As someone who owns both the 5D and C100, and has used every other major camera system (excepting the F65 and Amira), I would put the C100 closer to the Alexa than to the 5D and with better ergonomics for a single user than any other camera system. It's GREAT. But it doesn't do slow motion or 4k, however the 1080p image is the sharpest of any camera currently available, including the Alexa and Red, whereas other Canon has the softest 1080p I've seen (but good colors), which measures closer to 720p and "feels" more like SD in many cases.

Pick one up used; the MKII is not much better and was just released. I can't recommend this camera highly enough, although the learning curve is a bit more than the dSLRs.

I do have a limited budget for the camera, so getting C100 is out of question, for now.

I'm not too much interested in 4K, cause in a way, we do know that all things that we upload to YouTube or Vimeo, get downsized because of their inner compression and all.

This is my first shopping adventure with the cameras, in a way, that I want to own one and when I want to shoot something, that I could do it without restrictions (when you rent something, there's lot's of restrictions and budget matters), and when you are owner of camera, you can do freely whatever you want to do it.

Because of the budget, I could buy only 2 lenses. Now, my choice goes to:

Canon 16-35 f4 IS L and Canon 135 f2 L.

Any thoughts about those lenses?

 

[WillThompson]

? Is there a good reason to NOT recommend the 7DmkII?

Just curious.

Thanks, Will T.

Based on my experience with the 70D, the 7D II should have great AF, but suffer from all the dSLR issues (bad sound, aliasing, no focus peaking or punch-in for focus, no good pre-amps, no waveform monitor, poor codec, not great color science, aliasing, etc.) as well as being APS-C with frame-skipping resulting in relatively poor sensitivity at extreme ISOs.

Should be fine if you can figure out how to get good sound and your client doesn't care about a bit of aliasing and softness. But the C100 (or FS7 if you have the money) should be soo much better.

Have you actually used a 7DII?

 

[PoulStaugaard]

Dave Dougdale says drop Canon and go with the Panasonic Lumix GH4. If video is your main use.

 

[Bigjezza]

? Is there a good reason to NOT recommend the 7DmkII?

Just curious.

Thanks, Will T.

Based on my experience with the 70D, the 7D II should have great AF, but suffer from all the dSLR issues (bad sound, aliasing, no focus peaking or punch-in for focus, no good pre-amps, no waveform monitor, poor codec, not great color science, aliasing, etc.) as well as being APS-C with frame-skipping resulting in relatively poor sensitivity at extreme ISOs.

Should be fine if you can figure out how to get good sound and your client doesn't care about a bit of aliasing and softness. But the C100 (or FS7 if you have the money) should be soo much better.

I own the 7D MKII and a Canon XA20 (the current top of the line Canon prosumer video camera)
The 7d mkii has better codecs. All I frame compression, apparently at about 70mbps (I haven't looked) the best the xa20 does is 35mbps mp4
White balance is easier to set on xa20
Af is a tough choice. Without directly comparing them I'd say they're equal. The xa20 has no waveform monitor, but does have peaking.
The xa20 does have phenomenal image stabalization though. And a massive zoom range, however its ca at Tele end leaves alot to be desired.

 

[TPLS]

Guuuys, you missed the point of the topic.

There is only two choices: 6D or 5D Mark III and is it okay to give 1300$ more for 5D Mark III. I can't give more money, that's the situation for me right now.

I know, the best would be 1D-X, but maybe in couple of years. Now, need to keep it real.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

OK, so I am a heretic. Based on the totality of the info request - before you buy Canon and sink something closing in on $5k you MIGHT, kinda, think about, read the reviews of film folks, call Dave Dugdale/Andrew Reid and ask about the Samsung NX1.

To me, it seems that you are as concerned about post processing load (it is mighty for those who haven't really done it - it makes stills work giggly quick).

IMO - Shooting RAW on the 5diii is top of the mark for DSLR, but the post processing - largely just cause you can - can drive you into recluse on the top of some mountain somewhere. Having Magic Lantern on the 5dIII takes it to a different level in several respects.

I agree w/ the comment about corvette and package delivery - with Magic Lantern/Raw a 5dIII at least has a trailer hitch and a trailer

 

[daveheinzel]

I currently use a 6D as my main video camera. I've used a rented 5DIII and have a little experience with that. I'm not sure how you're covered for audio, but I use a Tascam DR-100 for audio. I keep it separate from the camera and sync in post (FCPX). I'm very happy with the 6D. Every now and then I run into aliasing issues, but usually not. And you can learn how to minimize them with practice. I use the kit lens (24-105 f4) for a surprisingly large percentage of shots. I wasn't planning on using the lens much, but it's extremely useful in documentary and fast-shooting situations. When I have time, I'll use a 70-200 2.8, a Zeiss 50 1.4 and the 17-40 to complement its range (the 50mm 1.4 is magical). I'd get the 6D and put any leftover money into a solid rig, sound system, slider... pieces of kit that otherwise add production value to your video that your camera cannot.

 

[dgatwood]

Guuuys, you missed the point of the topic.

There is only two choices: 6D or 5D Mark III and is it okay to give 1300$ more for 5D Mark III. I can't give more money, that's the situation for me right now.

By the time you buy a 6D, a usable lens, and an audio recorder, you're at about the cost of an XA-25, which gives you the equivalent of a 26.8-576mm superzoom, with XLR audio and phantom power, manual level controls, etc., all in a single, portable package, and all without that idiotic 30-minute recording limit that Canon's DSLRs impose.

I'm just saying, if I were buying gear specifically for recording video, a Canon DSLR not only would not be my first choice, it wouldn't even be on my list.

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

neither

 

[photog4hire]

This depends on the post processing you may have in mind for your video productions. Mainly, 5D Mark III has clean HDMI out which means if you wanted to use an external device like an ATAMOS you can send a clean signal to that and record in ProRes 4:2:2 or various other formats. ProRes offers far less compression and offers more latitude than the inboard formats. Be prepared to color grade, sharpen, add contrast, etc. in post.

The ATAMOS also uses cFast cards and does not limit your record time to 30 minutes. Some even come with external monitors.

The 6D would limit you in this area which means you will be stuck with the compressed MOV file format. Other than that the 6D would suffice.

A 5D or 6D wouldn't impact if you will need a follow focus, steadicam, shoulder rig, jib, slider, etc. Of course you will need these. Your end product is going to be the quality of your video and your other half---audio.

If I may suggest,

The canon 7DMkII has clean HDMI out allowing you to record at the less compressed formats with an ATAMOS. You should be able to get the 7DMkII a ATAMOS device and a very good microphone and still be within the price you would have spent on a 5DMkIII. This would get you the most value out of your dollar production wise.

One more thing,
Most people are raving over shooting at 4K and the future of watching/recording in it. If you intend on working with these devices for the next 3-5 years you will be doing so without that ability.

Good Luck.

 

[TPLS]

This depends on the post processing you may have in mind for your video productions. Mainly, 5D Mark III has clean HDMI out which means if you wanted to use an external device like an ATAMOS you can send a clean signal to that and record in ProRes 4:2:2 or various other formats. ProRes offers far less compression and offers more latitude than the inboard formats. Be prepared to color grade, sharpen, add contrast, etc. in post.

The ATAMOS also uses cFast cards and does not limit your record time to 30 minutes. Some even come with external monitors.

The 6D would limit you in this area which means you will be stuck with the compressed MOV file format. Other than that the 6D would suffice.

A 5D or 6D wouldn't impact if you will need a follow focus, steadicam, shoulder rig, jib, slider, etc. Of course you will need these. Your end product is going to be the quality of your video and your other half---audio.

If I may suggest,

The canon 7DMkII has clean HDMI out allowing you to record at the less compressed formats with an ATAMOS. You should be able to get the 7DMkII a ATAMOS device and a very good microphone and still be within the price you would have spent on a 5DMkIII. This would get you the most value out of your dollar production wise.

One more thing,
Most people are raving over shooting at 4K and the future of watching/recording in it. If you intend on working with these devices for the next 3-5 years you will be doing so without that ability.

Good Luck.

Somehow I did today choose to go with 5D Mark III. Plus, I bought two lenses for the start: Canon 16-35 f4 IS LL and Canon 135 f2 L. For Audio, will have Rode VideoMic Pro and if I really need better audio than this, will rent sound guy.

I really don't raving over shooting at 4K. Cause, first of all, my primary thing is to shot a good story, make better characters in those stories, not going with primary thinking is my video bitchin' in 4K or not.

Other thing is... for how long 5D Mark III can work with me? Around me, people still working with Mark II that they bought in 2008, so if works for them six years, I would be very happy for the next four or five.

I do have steadicam and that's all for now.

The thing is... my budget is very, very limited so I need to think about what to buy and for how long or for how short I will pay back to myself all those products.

This whole thing is a big step ahead for me. I'm waiting my new editing machine (right now working on Windows platform, core2duo cpu... circa 2008 PC configuration. Now ordered iMac). Plus 5DMarkIII, lenses, batteries, microphones... it's a big money party for me.

And yes, video is my primary thing... but I would really like to get started in photo, so maybe it's not so bad to get MarkIII and then to work with it for a many, many years that are ahead.

 

[asmundma]

I have both 5D3 and the Sony A7s. Sorry but you did a big mistake, A7s is way better then 5D3 which is useless when you have seen the imsge from the Sony.

 

[Marsu42]

I have both 5D3 and the Sony A7s. Sorry but you did a big mistake, A7s is way better then 5D3 which is useless when you have seen the imsge from the Sony.

Yeah, stick it to him, bro, x-mas is past :->

Actually I think esp. using Magic Lantern raw video/focus peaking, a 5d3 might do "ok" video for most people. Admittedly as the op's *job* is film-making and he wants only the best iq (he didn't write that though), you might really question the decision to go with Canon or a video-dslr in general rather than dedicated video gear.

But then again it's not all about the tech - I hear other factors also play a role how the final products ends up... and if you like your gear, your results will be better, no matter what a comparison of the spec sheet says.

 

[Spiros Zaharakis]

5D MkIII is a great camera for video if you already have one but not a great buy if you are shopping for a video camera now.
Sony A7s has better image quality but it is not necessarily a better camera for everyone.
5DmkIII shoots great up to ISO 10.000 and with an f2.8 lens that's brighter than the human eye.
A7r has really bad rolling shutter delay.
That, combined with its small size and low weight makes it completely unusable handheld. 5DmkIII is way better at shooting handheld.
If I was shopping for a video camera today I would go for a Panasonic GH4 and a Metabones Speedbooster EF to m4/3 with a few stabilized Canon lenses plus a couple native m4/3 lenses for those times that you need AF or small size.