5d Mark III (Is it worth it for me?)

[daelectricsheep]

Hello All!

I've been thinking over the past few weeks on wether or not I should get a 5d Mark III. (This is my first full frame DSLR i plan to buy, never owned another full frame dslr, upgrading from a t3i)

I've seen some downing reviews by those who expected more from Mark iii (especially on the sharpeness/resolution).

The nikkor ais lenses have been stepping up the game for the Mark III (Nikor Ais 50mm f1.2/Nikkor Ais 28mm f2.8) in a short film called copelandia (Canon 5D Mark III - Copelandia on Vimeo) and i feel convinced to get one.

Have any of you guys who have bought the 5d mark iii regret buying it for video with the future to come cameras like the Black Magic Cinema Camera or perhaps the future gh3? (only thing that kept me from abandoning the mark iii and going for the black magic camera was that it wasnt full frame and internal battery)

The Mark III for me, as a filmmaker, is a very big investment, I dont know if its worth it. I still have hopes for the Mark III to shine with future firmware upgrades + ML (Does anyone think the future of magic lantern can unlock the 5d Mark III's capabilities whiach canon had crippled to protect its cinema line? Will we see another "gh2-like" hack?), but i just wanted some opinions before I take this risk. ( I do have extra money from selling my old t3i to buy those nikkor lenses which have seem to suite the Mark III perfectly for video )

-Thankyou again

 

[paul13walnut5]

How did canon cripple their cameras? By not putting advanced professional controls that most folk don't want or need on consumer products?

The guys and gals at ML do sterling work, but they tend to add features via firmware rather than unlock anything that was already there (audio levels and intermediate iso aside) canon added controls to the 5d2, built them into the 60d, 600d, and are about to build manual sudio into 7d firmware (which ML couldn't, just saying)

Any of canons current dslrs (asides the t3) are capable of excellent video work. Do your sums. Editing suite and software? Lights? Rig? Tripod? Sound gear? Then think about skill, you can light a scene? You can choose the right gels to even out mixed lighting? You can place a mic? Plan a single camera two person dialogue scene edit before you shot a frame?

& lenses. You really want used nikkors with oily diaphragms, fungus and 1970s coatings?

Price L's price samyangs, worry about all of this, then worry if a 5d3 is crippled or not.

If so, great lets talk cameras.

 

[syder]

How did canon cripple their cameras? By not putting advanced professional controls that most folk don't want or need on consumer products?

No, by giving them two crappy codecs which are both short of broadcast standard. There was no reason not to give them the 50mb/s 4:2:2 xf codec. It's what everyone wanted, not a 90 mb/s intraframe codec... And the 5d is not a consumer product.

The guys and gals at ML do sterling work, but they tend to add features via firmware rather than unlock anything that was already there (audio levels and intermediate iso aside)

This is not true. ML's only firmware change is a flag to allow the cameras to run the ML software.

The question isn't is the 5DM3 crippled (it is), but do the restrictions matter for you? Lets be honest, if you're doing broadcast work where the restrictions matter, then the cost of a body is not a big problem, and would be significantly less than any of the alternatives (C300/FS700/Scarlet). If you're planning on doing lots of wide shots of landscapes (I don't personally know anyone who does this outside of nature documentaries) then the resolution is probably an issue. If like most people you're subjects will mainly be humans it really wont be a problem.

Better cameras will come out in the future, but you have to ask yourself whether you need a camera now, and if so what you need it for, and how much money it will bring in in terms of work. The 5DM3 is a significant improvement over the 5DM2, which people have used to create a variety of stunning material. It almost certainly wont be the limiting factor in the quality of your work.

 

[Axilrod]

Hello All!

I've been thinking over the past few weeks on wether or not I should get a 5d Mark III. (This is my first full frame DSLR i plan to buy, never owned another full frame dslr, upgrading from a t3i)

I've seen some downing reviews by those who expected more from Mark iii (especially on the sharpeness/resolution).

The nikkor ais lenses have been stepping up the game for the Mark III (Nikor Ais 50mm f1.2/Nikkor Ais 28mm f2.8) in a short film called copelandia (Canon 5D Mark III - Copelandia on Vimeo) and i feel convinced to get one.

Have any of you guys who have bought the 5d mark iii regret buying it for video with the future to come cameras like the Black Magic Cinema Camera or perhaps the future gh3? (only thing that kept me from abandoning the mark iii and going for the black magic camera was that it wasnt full frame and internal battery)

The Mark III for me, as a filmmaker, is a very big investment, I dont know if its worth it. I still have hopes for the Mark III to shine with future firmware upgrades + ML (Does anyone think the future of magic lantern can unlock the 5d Mark III's capabilities whiach canon had crippled to protect its cinema line? Will we see another "gh2-like" hack?), but i just wanted some opinions before I take this risk. ( I do have extra money from selling my old t3i to buy those nikkor lenses which have seem to suite the Mark III perfectly for video )

-Thankyou again

You're misinformed about some of the things you're saying, and it's clear that you're regurgitating the opinions of a few people here and there on the web. But Paulie covered a lot of that so I'll skip it.

Anyways, the 5D3 is a MASSIVE jump from a T3i, it's a totally different camera and the T3i will feel like a complete joke after playing with a 5D3. Huge difference in low-light capability, much more shallow DOF, and FF sensors make all your lenses feel brand new again (since it gives you a different field of view). Sure the 5D3 could be better, but I can't imagine you having a project on the horizon that it wouldn't be good enough for...

Seriously, you can't blame the camera anymore, you can make just about anything for anyone with a 5D3. Sure there may be cameras that have a better dynamic range and a little bit better resolution, but to your average joe they still think the 5D3 looks incredible and won't give a damn if you're telling a good story. STORY IS EVERYTHING. I could give you an Alexa or Epic, a set of master primes, and Chapman dollys and $300k cranes and $20k steadicams and all that, but if your story isn't good it doesn't matter one bit how glitzy the shots are, people aren't going to like it.

 

[Axilrod]

How did canon cripple their cameras? By not putting advanced professional controls that most folk don't want or need on consumer products?

The guys and gals at ML do sterling work, but they tend to add features via firmware rather than unlock anything that was already there (audio levels and intermediate iso aside) canon added controls to the 5d2, built them into the 60d, 600d, and are about to build manual sudio into 7d firmware (which ML couldn't, just saying)

Any of canons current dslrs (asides the t3) are capable of excellent video work. Do your sums. Editing suite and software? Lights? Rig? Tripod? Sound gear? Then think about skill, you can light a scene? You can choose the right gels to even out mixed lighting? You can place a mic? Plan a single camera two person dialogue scene edit before you shot a frame?

& lenses. You really want used nikkors with oily diaphragms, fungus and 1970s coatings?

Price L's price samyangs, worry about all of this, then worry if a 5d3 is crippled or not.

If so, great lets talk cameras.

Paulie do you have a Scottish accent? Just curious as to what voice I need to be playing in my head when I read your posts. I really hope you say yes.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@syder

No, by giving them two crappy codecs which are both short of broadcast standard. There was no reason not to give them the 50mb/s 4:2:2 xf codec. It's what everyone wanted, not a 90 mb/s intraframe codec... And the 5d is not a consumer product.

Well there was some reason:

G1 (D4 based) Canon video DSLRs cannot handle that bandwith reliably.

How long would you get on G1 D4 cameras with 4GB cap per clip?

Cards would need to be huge and expensive.

Whilst I would not use any DSLR, or mpeg based, or single chip camera for heavy duty compositing, I have seen plenty of stuff broadcast that was shot on DSLRs. Including a couple of my own TV adverts. (7D)

50MB/s and 90MB/s is breaking XDCAMHD and approaching original HDCAM territory. How much are XDCAM cameras costing?

Temporal codecs sucks as origination format, but then I recall MPEG2 being fine for broadcast when folks were shooting with z1's etc. Spatial codecs better for editing. Uncompressed is really what you want for decent grading. I suppose some folk would be annoyed that the 5D3 stills camera with video lumped doesn't record RAW.

You had better tell Darren Aronovsky to reshoot black swan, as if the codecs aren't broadcast quality then they certainly can't be cinematic quality. Can they?

I DO see your point, but it's an unrealistic expectation for the cost. Canon not giving YOU everything YOU want isn't them crippling a camera.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Axilrod

Paulie do you have a Scottish accent? Just curious as to what voice I need to be playing in my head when I read your posts. I really hope you say yes.

I sound exactly like groundskeeper Wullie from the Simpsons.

 

[bp]

Is it worth it for you, is a question only you will be able to answer.

And most likely, even you will only be able to answer that accurately a year or two after you make the purchase.

I've only had mine for a couple months now, but as of right now, I do feel like it was worth it for me

 

[syder]

@syder

No, by giving them two crappy codecs which are both short of broadcast standard. There was no reason not to give them the 50mb/s 4:2:2 xf codec. It's what everyone wanted, not a 90 mb/s intraframe codec... And the 5d is not a consumer product.

Well there was some reason:

G1 (D4 based) Canon video DSLRs cannot handle that bandwith reliably.

How long would you get on G1 D4 cameras with 4GB cap per clip?

Cards would need to be huge and expensive.

Whilst I would not use any DSLR, or mpeg based, or single chip camera for heavy duty compositing, I have seen plenty of stuff broadcast that was shot on DSLRs. Including a couple of my own TV adverts. (7D)

50MB/s and 90MB/s is breaking XDCAMHD and approaching original HDCAM territory. How much are XDCAM cameras costing?

Temporal codecs sucks as origination format, but then I recall MPEG2 being fine for broadcast when folks were shooting with z1's etc. Spatial codecs better for editing. Uncompressed is really what you want for decent grading. I suppose some folk would be annoyed that the 5D3 stills camera with video lumped doesn't record RAW.

You had better tell Darren Aronovsky to reshoot black swan, as if the codecs aren't broadcast quality then they certainly can't be cinematic quality. Can they?

I DO see your point, but it's an unrealistic expectation for the cost. Canon not giving YOU everything YOU want isn't them crippling a camera.

Actually no. Canon had been hyping the 5Dm3 saying that there would be a new codec - which many people expected to be the 50mb/s 4:2:2 codec they used in the xf line. D4 cameras perhaps can't handle that, but if D5+ can do 90mb/s intraframe I'd be very surprised if they cant do 50mb/s 4:2:2 - hell the 1dc is going to do mjpeg at 4k 500mb/s with d5+ (albeit with 2 of em and extra cooling systems) so claiming that 50mb/s isn't possible just aint true.

Similarly your file size thing just makes no sense - how is a 50mb/s file any bigger (and therefore more problematic with regards to storage) than the 90mb/s intraframe codec which they implemented on the 5dm3? If you're concerned about how long you get on a card then surely you'd rather have a smaller file? How long would you get on a 32gb CF card at 50 mb/s - about an hour. Given that they cost just over £50 and with several you'd be fine for most things (and its not like you want DSLRs for reality anyway). Compared to the cost of, say Panasonic P2 cards (which are damn cheap now compared to what they were in the past) at around £375 for 32gb that seems pretty reasonable? no?

The difference between shooting for broadcast, and the heavy imaging work that goes into cinematic images is apples to oranges, and I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand this. They used the 5Dm2 on House - so you can broadcast it - but only after a long, complex and expensive process in post. This is worlds away from what you have to do with footage out of C300 or even an EX3 before it can be broadcast - and the cost of doing this effectively prevents production companies using a 5Dm3 as a cheap camera for broadcasting material.

Canon using codecs which prevent particular uses of a camera (without extended post-processing) to protect other aspects of their product line is effectively crippling a camera. Not including simple features which the cameras are capable of such as zebra bars is similarly meant to distinguish their DSLRs from their video line. The 5Dm3 is great for many things, but pretending that Canon haven't deliberately taken particular decisions to prevent particular usages (or to make them far more effort than is necessary) just isn't true.

However, unless you're main line of work is broadcast this doesn't affect you. Increasingly people are making content for the web - and for that the 5Dm3 is more than enough of a camera to make stunning work.

 

[syder]

Seriously, you can't blame the camera anymore, you can make just about anything for anyone with a 5D3. Sure there may be cameras that have a better dynamic range and a little bit better resolution, but to your average joe they still think the 5D3 looks incredible and won't give a damn if you're telling a good story. STORY IS EVERYTHING. I could give you an Alexa or Epic, a set of master primes, and Chapman dollys and $300k cranes and $20k steadicams and all that, but if your story isn't good it doesn't matter one bit how glitzy the shots are, people aren't going to like it.

+1 (and that applies to documentary as much as fiction)


Some of the most emotionally involving films I've seen recently have been no-budget documentaries shot by people with minidv cameras with little formal knowledge of cinematography, but who told beautiful stories about their communities.

And also think of the crew costs involved in using an Epic, loads of lights, cranes etc... If you're making low budget indie work, or shooting promos for local businesses, or people's weddings you'd be losing money on every project if you were using that stuff. Not to mention freaking out the bride by turning her perfect day into a film set (sometimes having a small DSLR is great because it doesn't draw attention to you in the way that even an EX3, let alone an Epic does).

Consider what you're going to be making, what kind of budgets you'll have, and plan appropriately.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Consider what you're going to be making, what kind of budgets you'll have, and plan appropriately.

Absolutely, but also realise that there is more to good video than turning a mode dial and hitting record. There are a lot of photographers who want to become DoP's but who couldn't tell you a kelvin from a cardiod.

 

[Marsu42]

The Mark III for me, as a filmmaker, is a very big investment, I dont know if its worth it.

The main improvements of the 5d3 are for still shooting (faster fps, 1dx-like af, quiet shutter mode). For video, afaik one real improvement is less aliasing, actually the stronger aa filter is known to hurt still shots. If aliasing on the 5d2 isn't any problem for you, imho the older model is clearly the one to get. And it runs ml *now*, it hasn't even decided yet by the ml dev which body to target next - 650d, 1100d or 5d3. So my prediction is about 1 year until the 5d3 port might be ready and stable.

It's not like you couldn't sell the 5d2 in a year or so with little loss of money - the 5d2 will still be great value, while the 5d3 price is sure to drop...

 

[daelectricsheep]

Woah!

Didn't expect that many responses, thank you for all of them though, very glad to hear your opinions.

To make this clear, I may not know everything about making films, but I do know a decent amount to be ready to spend money on a decent camera like the 5d Mark III.

Current Setup:
T3i - Tokina 11-16mm / Canon 50mm F1.8
Zoom H4n - Rode Videomic
Editing Programs:Adobe Production Premium CS5.5

I work with a group of friends to make short films and music videos, we aren't anything big in budget, most of the things we do are self funded, so i wanted a camera that I can use for another 4 years or so (like the 5d Mark II at its time to now). I don't see myself continuing filming as my main occupation but more of a very fun hobby I will enjoy down the road

I have one more question to ask before I make a decision, for 3500 dollars only can I get a better deal for a camera to shoot video (take into detail: fullframe, low light, and dynamic range) (I do not need any gear for it is covered or any lenses, just for a body only )

Thankyou all once again!

 

[Marsu42]

take into detail: fullframe, low light, and dynamic range

The 5d2 and 5d3 share the same basic sensor, so both ff, low light and the dr actually *decreased* a tiny bit on the 5d3. Auto white balance is better on the 5d3 due to an updated metering system, I mentioned anti-aliasing & ml above.

All in all: be sure to check the reviews before you spend money for a 5d3, you can nearly get 2x 5d2 bodies for that... but you already seem to be set for a 5d3, and by all means, a good choice. But it's always easier to get the "get the latest and greatest" type of advice than "the most adequate tools for the job" one.

 

[daelectricsheep]

You make such a great point. I will take into consideration the Mark II, but there are some features I feel like as a filmaker I would benefit from, such as audio jacks, metering, the elimination of Moire, 60fps 720p. But hey, I might not know what the heck I'm talking about anyways so I will add the Mark II up with there with the Mark III in my choices.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Current Setup:
T3i - Tokina 11-16mm / Canon 50mm F1.8
Zoom H4n - Rode Videomic

Sell the Tokina. You need a 16-35mm f2.8 for full frame.
Some folk rate the Tokina as usable at 16mm on FF. It was never designed for this.

I have the Tokina and love it on my APS-C cameras. It's not a lens for full frame.

I would rather a 5D2 and 16-35 than a 5D3 and 11-16.

Also. There is nothing actually wrong with the T3i for video.

Seriously.

FF is harder to focus, often requires different lenses (see above for Tokina example)

APS-C Canons exhibit less rolling shutter (marginally to be fair) and the moire can be dealt with if you follow my top secret grading recipe.

On APS-C you are still getting more DoF control than on super35 based sensors etc. Think really really hard about this. I am being entierely sincere.

For the cash you'll drop on a 5D3 and FF lenses you could buy some really nice flouro lighting, a really brilliant tripod or rig and some decent sound gear (not the Rode VMC)

The difference between a 5D2 or 3 with the right lenses and an APS-C camera with the right lenses ALL USED PROPERLY is about 5-10% in my opinion.

The difference between no lighting and lighting is about 80%, the difference between crap sound and good sound is aboiut 99.9%

Buy a good camera. But you have one already. Look at all the other elements. A 5D3 will make your material 10% better on a very very good day. The money could be spent vastly more effectively elsewhere.