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

[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.

Have you actually used a 7DII?

No, but I've used the 70D and the sample footage from the 7D II has the same look (and same aliasing).

The Mark III is not a "ready to shoot" camera. The preamps are dreadful (if you never need to record sound that's another matter), there's no focus peaking or exposure tools, etc. To kit one out to be "production-ready" you'd spend more than you'd spend on a C100 (or used AF100 or FS100)... It's the cheapest, but not the least expensive. The 6D I can't recommend for video specifically.

They're all pretty awesome compared with what was available 5 years ago, but unfortunately standards have increased, too. 4k I don't think is necessary until your client demands it.

 

[Tugela]

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!

If you are interested in a DSLR for film making you would be much better off with a GH4, NX1 or A7s than with either the 5D3 or 6D.

 

[Tugela]

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

Just curious.

Thanks, Will T.

Because it is junk for video?

 

[Tugela]

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?

You are aware that Youtube allows 4K and 1440p options as well right? Also, a 4K image allows downsizing for excellent quality in 1080p, not to mention room for stabilization and panning in post without compromising the IQ. Given the option between a 4K capable camera and a nominally 1080p camera (effective resolution is almost always lower in those systems), only an idiot would choose the 1080p camera.

 

[Tugela]

? 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.

The purple fringes you see in the XA20 (which is a pro camera btw - the prosumer analog is the G30 - essentially the same camera without the handle) are not caused by CA, they are the result of light scattering on the beyer filter. It is present at all focal lengths on the camera (I have a G30, so I know), although it will be encountered more frequently on the tele range due to the angles light comes to the sensor.

The problem with the Canon prosumer video cameras is that they all use small sensors. That creates issues if you want the sort of depth of field that a DSLR can provide. In addition, they have extensive purple fringing as a result of sensor level light scattering. Purple fringing is much less of an issue on larger sensors, such as you might find on a DSLR.

 

[Policar]

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!

If you are interested in a DSLR for film making you would be much better off with a GH4, NX1 or A7s than with either the 5D3 or 6D.

In terms of image quality alone, yes. In terms of buying into a system that's easy to use and doesn't require awkward adapters and difficulty interfacing with other Canon shooters, no.

But I agree. The A7S (other than its brutal skew) is quite a beast. The GH4 with XLR module (other than its poor low light and small sensor) is great, too.

I would still recommend a used C100, used FS100, or used AF100. But between 6D and 5D Mark III, 5D Mark III for sure!