I know this may have been beaten to death but im new to the forum.. Whats better 7D vs 5Diii for video? Pros vs Cons
7D vs 5Diii for video?
- Thread starter MonteGraham
- Start date
- Status
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
As a very happy 7D user, and assuming all other factors are equal... go for the 5D3.
More recent tech, better high ISO, better & more GOP options (DSLR video is either very compressed or very very very compressed, the 5D3 at least lets you choose the least bad option) and the option of RAW video output if you are really very serious. There is far less moire / aliasing on the 5D3 (do not believe anybody who tells you there is none) and there is a headphone socket for audio monitoring.
I'm going down the C100 route as video is more important to me that stills. And my 7D exceeds my ability and aspirations as a hobby stills photographer. If you are very serious about video you may want to look beyond a DSLR form.. The great thing about the c100 is that it is a more natural fit for my lenses.
There are somethings to be said for the 7D however:
Great at low isos and medium isos if you use 320, 640 etc.
Price.
Cheaper lenses, particularly at the UWA end.
Here's a big thing, depth of field. The object seems to be to get as little depth of field as possible, to emulate the so called film look...
Beaten to death. The film look also requires proper lighting, art direction (colour and light pull your attention, you want a closed set up, where you are in control of anything that is exposed, not at the mercy of mixed lighting etc) and as 135 / leica / minature format DSLRs have sensors that are larger than s35 movie film the effect is potentially more pronounced than you would ever see in a feature film.
I admire the flexibility that say an f1.2 50mm and 135 / leica / minature format DSLR gives you, but I can't imagine ever actually shooting at f1.2, unless the subject was a fair distance away and I really needed the low light capability.
I find that I get more managable depth of field with APS-c / s35 format sensors. You still get that great bokeh with the right lenses, you still get the great smooth fall off wide open, just your depth of field is significantly increased around the focus plane, a huge help when working close, you get most of the desired aesthetic, and less of the pain in the ass requirements for hyper critical focusing, the 7D and it's ilk are that bit more forgiving.
For example in an interview situation I would maybe use a 70-200 f2.8 (my version isn't parfocal, but thats a different issue) and I know that once my camera is set and the subject set that I'll usually have enough focus latitude to permit slight movements by the subject, as folk naturally do when talking.
On a 135 / leica / minature format DSLR you are going to have far less latitude, which may be tolerable on your rear monitor or 7" marshall, but will look awful on a 50" plasma or projected.
It is something to bear in mind.
The 5D3 is the better of the two cameras you mention, but for video, the 7D may be fractionally easier to work with in my experience, and if you are buying exclusively for video I would actually recommend something else altogether.
The form factor of DSLRs is terrible, with menus, controls on the wrong side, lens filtering etc, poor audio options. etc etc.
More recent tech, better high ISO, better & more GOP options (DSLR video is either very compressed or very very very compressed, the 5D3 at least lets you choose the least bad option) and the option of RAW video output if you are really very serious. There is far less moire / aliasing on the 5D3 (do not believe anybody who tells you there is none) and there is a headphone socket for audio monitoring.
I'm going down the C100 route as video is more important to me that stills. And my 7D exceeds my ability and aspirations as a hobby stills photographer. If you are very serious about video you may want to look beyond a DSLR form.. The great thing about the c100 is that it is a more natural fit for my lenses.
There are somethings to be said for the 7D however:
Great at low isos and medium isos if you use 320, 640 etc.
Price.
Cheaper lenses, particularly at the UWA end.
Here's a big thing, depth of field. The object seems to be to get as little depth of field as possible, to emulate the so called film look...
Beaten to death. The film look also requires proper lighting, art direction (colour and light pull your attention, you want a closed set up, where you are in control of anything that is exposed, not at the mercy of mixed lighting etc) and as 135 / leica / minature format DSLRs have sensors that are larger than s35 movie film the effect is potentially more pronounced than you would ever see in a feature film.
I admire the flexibility that say an f1.2 50mm and 135 / leica / minature format DSLR gives you, but I can't imagine ever actually shooting at f1.2, unless the subject was a fair distance away and I really needed the low light capability.
I find that I get more managable depth of field with APS-c / s35 format sensors. You still get that great bokeh with the right lenses, you still get the great smooth fall off wide open, just your depth of field is significantly increased around the focus plane, a huge help when working close, you get most of the desired aesthetic, and less of the pain in the ass requirements for hyper critical focusing, the 7D and it's ilk are that bit more forgiving.
For example in an interview situation I would maybe use a 70-200 f2.8 (my version isn't parfocal, but thats a different issue) and I know that once my camera is set and the subject set that I'll usually have enough focus latitude to permit slight movements by the subject, as folk naturally do when talking.
On a 135 / leica / minature format DSLR you are going to have far less latitude, which may be tolerable on your rear monitor or 7" marshall, but will look awful on a 50" plasma or projected.
It is something to bear in mind.
The 5D3 is the better of the two cameras you mention, but for video, the 7D may be fractionally easier to work with in my experience, and if you are buying exclusively for video I would actually recommend something else altogether.
The form factor of DSLRs is terrible, with menus, controls on the wrong side, lens filtering etc, poor audio options. etc etc.
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
Great insight.. The thing is i started with the 7D as my first DSLR about a year and a half ago. I just recently updated to the 5DMKIII. Im getting into Wedding Photography and ill be purchasing another 5DMKIII body. I also dabble in a little bit of video making(not as serious about it as still photos). My reasoning for keeping the 7D around would be for videos if its video capabilities are as good as 5DMKIII.. I really dont want to sell it because me and "Silvia" have been through a lot. We bonded and got to know one another on 4 different continents. Im just trying to find a justification as to why keep her..
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
Reason 1. Resale value is (comparatively) rubbish.
Reason 2. What are you going to use if your 5D3 is dropped / breaks / gets stolen during a wedding.
Reason 3. What if you want to shoot video and take stills at the same time?
The 7D is a very good 2nd camera to have in your kit bag.
I would keep it around.
Reason 2. What are you going to use if your 5D3 is dropped / breaks / gets stolen during a wedding.
Reason 3. What if you want to shoot video and take stills at the same time?
The 7D is a very good 2nd camera to have in your kit bag.
I would keep it around.
Upvote
0
Also, for EXTREME high end picture...Magic Lantern is getting closer every day I think, to getting the capability to shoot full 14bit RAW video from the 5D3....ready for prime time (not just alpha software).
This will be huge if you want to do some high end shooting and post color grading on your footage from the 5D3 FF sensor.
C
This will be huge if you want to do some high end shooting and post color grading on your footage from the 5D3 FF sensor.
C
Upvote
0
Both are awful by today's standards and incredibly by two year ago's. The 5D has three or so stops better low light, but both look fine at low ISOs. The sensor is obviously bigger. There's no aliasing or moire. Both are very soft and flat and difficult to post with and have mediocre DR.
While the argument for the 5D having shallower depth of field and thus a "film look" is indeed kind of silly (as the 7D has a super35-sized sensor, and the 5D's is oversized, requiring you to stop down) the availability of f2.8 zooms and a 24mm 1.4 prime are a big deal because the 5D has much better low light due to the larger sensor and in effect the 24-70mm f2.8 is like a 16-45mm f2 lens on a super35 camera... pretty close to ideal. Then you get f1.4 and faster primes (24,35,50,85, 135mm at f2), and that's basically like an f1 set of primes on super35. And dirt cheap relative to cinema lenses. So there's that. But usually I like to shoot around f4, anyway, and on the 5D f5.6; the shallow focus look is played out.
Long story short, get an C100 (or better).
While the argument for the 5D having shallower depth of field and thus a "film look" is indeed kind of silly (as the 7D has a super35-sized sensor, and the 5D's is oversized, requiring you to stop down) the availability of f2.8 zooms and a 24mm 1.4 prime are a big deal because the 5D has much better low light due to the larger sensor and in effect the 24-70mm f2.8 is like a 16-45mm f2 lens on a super35 camera... pretty close to ideal. Then you get f1.4 and faster primes (24,35,50,85, 135mm at f2), and that's basically like an f1 set of primes on super35. And dirt cheap relative to cinema lenses. So there's that. But usually I like to shoot around f4, anyway, and on the 5D f5.6; the shallow focus look is played out.
Long story short, get an C100 (or better).
Upvote
0
MonteGraham said:
5DIII has:
virtually no moire or aliasing. That is a huge advantage.
Excellent low light performance for both video and stills
Audio monitoring 3mm plug
Full frame makes a difference. Although 7D sensor is super 35, film cameras often will use very wide aperture lenses, equal to f/1.4 . DOF at f/2.8 is very shallow on FF, not so much on APS-C
Audio levels can be changed while filming with 5DIII. This is important.
Although soft out of camera, the 5DIII footage can tolerate quite a lot of sharpening, and sharpens quite well in post.
However, if video is your main concern. A C100, or even C300 (almost 3x more $) is a better choice, if you want to stay in the Canon camp. Non Canon options abound: Sony FS100, FS700, but lens adapters can be a pain. Black Magic has fans too.
Personally I'm tempted by the C100, maybe if there's a price drop I can swing it. The C300 is just too much for me now.
Upvote
0
5D3 all the way, the 7D is almost 4 years old. 5D3 has better codec, way better low light performance (ISO3200 is my limit for pro work on the 5D3, but for the 7D it was 800), and it's full frame of course. The footage just looks much cleaner overall IMO. It's a no brainer for me. =
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
The 5D also gives you the option of adding an external recorder and shooting Prores/DNxHD 422 - at far higher bitrates and with a superior chroma subsampling ratio which does give you significantly improved footage compared to the internal codecs. Nowhere near the quality of the 14 bit 4:4:4 RAW with ML - but a lot less hassle.
The form factor of DSLR's is either great or awful depending on what you're doing. They're flexible enough to be small and discrete if needed, or they can be pimped out with a rig, mattebox, evf, follow focus etc.
Things like audio really depend on what you want the camera for. Most fiction/high budget documentary stuff will have a separate sound guy who will be quite happy to record sound onto a separate device. One man band at an event - then the crappy audio can be an issue. It's easy enough to remedy with a separate sound recorder tbh - but this does mean a little more work in post (which if you're banging work out on tight deadlines will be a pain in the ass) and having some kind of rig setup.
The big question though, is what do you want the camera for? A Sony F65/Red Epic pisses all over a 5D in just about every way imaginable, but if you're on your own you wont be able to operate it probably and so the 5D would be a more appropriate option for the gig (more so a C100). Tools don't exist in isolation from the context they're used in, and you need to think about what will be the right tools for the jobs you'll be taking on.
Upvote
0
MonteGraham said:
5D3 by a million miles!
It doesn't have line skipping so you get 2 stops better SNR from that alone, never mind the larger sensor and far less moire and aliasing. And ML RAW is the real deal on the 5D3, infinitely better.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I recently made the jump to a c100& ninja2 and am loving it.
even beter iso performance than 7d, 5dm3, sharp, better ergonomics and controls.
would love to have a camera that can do both great stills and great video.
But todays dslr's are simply to crippled to do it.
even the c100 is crippled with a non broadcast codec but with a ninja you get to a broadcast level.
the 5dm3 can do the same via hdmi-mini-out but that conector is so flimsy its just not safe enough to rely on.
same thing with sound, client worries aside i never had troubles with using a external recorder and syncing in post via pluraleyes/dualeyes.
But i did have problems recording externaly and directly on the dslr via 3mm minijack (bad connection=no sound=nothing to sync with).
Now just plug it in the camera..why didn't someone think of this before
If the 7dmark2 gets closer to the Cine camera's than i'll get one as a second cam
magic lantern on the 5dm3 is greath but raw functionality is only usefull for short clips/shots not if you plan to shoot 1hour+ of footage on a day.
It would be great if some smart programmer could unlock the c100 and make it a even beter cam.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
cinema-dslr said:
Dang! Dang & Blast. I don't know of any camcorders other than some settings on P2 and XDCAM that actually shoot in a broadcast codec (certain settings of MPEG2 for most digital broadcasts)
I've never quite understood the term 'broadcast codec' in relation to cameras. And I've had stuff broadcast shot on dv dvcam hdv digibeta xdcam xdcamhd dvcpro dvcpro50 HDCAM EOS H.264.
I know certainly the broadcast editors I work with wouldn't generally thank you for RAW files. I think it's this years trick.
I wouldn't get too hung up on what broadcast quality is. The C100 is. A 10 year old z1 is. The key is the intermediate and editing codecs. It'll be squished back to MPEG2 levels anyway before broadcast.
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
Yes i know i've shot plenty of stuff on dv that got broadcast but thats not really the point .
The codec from the c100 is pretty good and really efficient but allot of data gets trown away during compression wich will show up in editing during grading etc..
With the ninja you get 4:2:2 in a edit ready codec so no need to do any conversion.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
cinema-dslr said:
4:2;2, why not 4:4:4? What about all those I's & Os you are chucking away?
Your folk who care that the canon codec is 4:2:0 should by rights care that your ninja codec is 4:2:2.
Seriously man, if you care enough to understand depth sampling to this degree, then you'd know which is 'broadcast' and which isn't.
And what do you mena by grading? Colour correction? Manipulation of Gamma Scale? Gamut?
Of course the conservative broadcast safe limits seriously restrict even current or old DR range cameras.
Fixing WB isn't grading.
Adding a vignette isn't grading.
And even converting 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 isn't actualy adding anything, much like converting 4:2:2 to 4:4:4 isn't really fooling anybody but yourself, certanly not resolve.
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
Using the ninja just gets you the best possible videosignal that the c100 can give.
8bit 4:2:2 recorded on a highlevel 4:2:2 10bit codec ready to insert in your editing suite and stable enough to not breakdown when adjusting level, bringing out shadows,highlights etc....
4:2:2 simply contains more info than 4:2:0 so why not make use of it?
The ninja transforms the 50i output (even when recording 25p) from the c100 to the 25p output you wanted, so no need to explain your editing software how to interpret the footage.
The ninja records on ssd in my opinion a more solid recordingmedium than small sd cards.( however that is just my inexperience with sd cards and haven't jet had any problems with them since i always record on them simultaneous with the ninja as a backup)
I agree that the broadcast discussion is essentially a mute one and is just used by productionhouses as a stick to separate the big from the little guys.
However with a ninja the c100 is essentially a c300 with a even beter "broadcast"codec.
And 4:2:2 doesn't hurt with greenscreen to
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
I actually wouldn't mind 50i for some applications when I can't be arsed carrying the pmw-500.
50i, of course being the more natural broadcast specification if you are splitting hairs.
The so called 'film look' doesn't suit everything.
The main reason I wouldn't automatically use a ninja with a c100 is the same reason I sometime use ProRes LT.
Against a deadline, it can be quicker to work with smaller files, which are 'good enough' for the task in hand.
50i, of course being the more natural broadcast specification if you are splitting hairs.
The so called 'film look' doesn't suit everything.
The main reason I wouldn't automatically use a ninja with a c100 is the same reason I sometime use ProRes LT.
Against a deadline, it can be quicker to work with smaller files, which are 'good enough' for the task in hand.
Upvote
0
cinema-dslr said:
To be honest, for most stuff a Ninja to HDMI out of the 5D3 does almost nothing. They mangle the output at some earlier stage. ML RAW utterly blows away, in very single regard, Ninja recorded 5D3 footage. The former looks insanely better than in camera recorded footage, while the latter BARELY looks better (unless you are comparing non-all-i and swinging the camera around or something else is going on to make almost the entire frame change frame to frame, the in camera stuff really falls apart for that, certainly if you are not using all-i; all-i might make it closer, never bothered to carefully compare since ML RAW came out before I got the chance).
Upvote
0
- Status
