Another 5D3 video thread.. help a 'forced' Nikonian decide which way to upgrade?

[JesseLim]

Hey guys,

I've been a reader of Canon Rumors for awhile now, first time posting.

I've been using a D7000 for some minor video projects. I was in a good position to go for it when it was released because of its strong video capabilities (for Nikon...), and also because my father had already invested in good Nikon glass decades ago and they were just sitting around in his closet:

A 28mm f2.8: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28mm-f28-ai.htm
A 135mm f2.8: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/135f28.htm
A 50mm f1.4: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50f14ai.htm

From that standpoint, the D7000 was a clear choice for my first video DSLR. I've been shooting with it for awhile now, and have three qualms:
- all of my lenses are full-frame lenses
- very annoyed with poor ISO performance... falls apart very quickly
- no 60fps

The obvious contenders for my money right now are the D800 and the 5D3 - both of which look more than promising. I would be using this upgrade as strictly a video camera.

Some examples of stuff I've been doing with the D7000:
http://youtu.be/2UMDxO7nDok?hd=1

http://youtu.be/CiiYBYlf09w?hd=1

http://youtu.be/-2SuulPR8ik?hd=1


Here's my dilemma: the ISO performance on the D800 does not look much better than the D7000's, and I am really struggling with the noise at the higher ISOs. That probably says something about my shooting style - I rarely use lights and shoot in low light pretty frequently. The price difference between upgrading to a D800 vs. upgrading to the 5D3 in my position is pretty massive... what should I do? What other factors should I be looking at? Is the ISO performance on the D800 going to continue to be a hindrance to me?

Another related question I have is whether or not using adapters to use my Nikon glass on a 5D3 is a no-no. What adapters would you recommend? Is this completely out of the question? It would definitely soften the blow on the wallet if it were a viable option. To buy equivalent L series glass, plus a 5D3... I would be able to afford the D4 at that point, wouldn't I?

What would you do in my position?

Thanks for reading, would really appreciate any input you have to give.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

If you are doing this strictly for video then I wouldn't choose either. Your paying a lot for a bunch of still photo features. I'd put my money into something dedicated to video.

 

[Ew]

Take a look at this non-scientific test at about 3min into video: The F%^&ing Nikon D800 vs. Canon 5D mkIII Shootout

5D3 looks the way to go when choosing between the two.

Don't forget the panas!
Take a look at Phillip Blooms shootout (check second part for low light / noise comparison) - 5D2, and not 5D3/D800 as they we not available at years end.
http://philipbloom.net/2012/01/06/christmas-shootout/

Nikon to EOS adapters can be found for as low as $55 ~ just need to make sure that camera gets the signal that a lens is attached.

Whichever way - keep the lenses! Nice kit!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

between 5d3 and d800, take the 5D3 but i'd wait to see what the new sony dslr do or look into one of the upcoming 4-5 thousand dollar video cams instead perhaps, nikon didn't do the greatest with d800 video and canon seems to have crippled their 5d3 a bit as their current marketing department is so want to do

if you are not doing anything where details matter or where you need to shoot distant subjects then the 5D3 is fine enough though

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

For strictly video, I would get a dedicated video camera. No sense in paying for stills features while at the same time missing out on video features that are not included in DSLRs. But in any case I would wait. NAB is around the corner and there should be quite a few new camera announcements.

 

[Policar]

The 5D III is amazing for low light (although the character of the grain is garbage) but resolution is a mess compared with a proper video camera. Only really bad in a gift horse context (720p-ish), but still not great... Adapters are okay but infinity focus gets screwed up so your AC will hate you and the rear element of Nikon lenses can hit the mirror. Hackable to work, but no good for a professional environment. A 24-70mm f2.8 zoom will do you for 80% of purposes, though, and a 70-200mm will handle most of the rest (excepting ultrawides and fishes or primes for speed--rent those). That said, a normal prime kit is 17/18, 25, 35, 50, 85, and on full frame that becomes 28, 35, 50, 85, 135...and you already have every other lens in that kit, so that would do you with a D800.

Consider the FS100 (and an additional ultra wide) if your interest is video exclusively. Also invest in a light kit, reflectors, a proper tripod, sound, and a book on lighting for video, all of which will matter much more than the difference between relatively comparable cameras. Other toys (sliders, big lights, grip gear, etc.) can be rented. The ROI on lights and lenses beats camera bodies by some insane margin in terms of visual impact and, in particular, resale.

 

[JesseLim]

This is exactly why I wanted to get second opinions - going the pure video route never crossed my mind because of all of the hype surrounding DSLR video. I just assumed that the only way to get a highly cinematic look affordably was through DSLRs.

Where should I start for researching more about prosumer level, 'cinematic looking' video cameras? I've worked with my school's >$5k video camera and have never been really pleased with the results.

What can I expect from NAB regarding what I'm looking for?

Thank you so much for the replies!

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

Currently, the best high quality / low price cameras are the Sony FS100 and Panasonic AF100. Although different is some technical aspects they both have their pros and cons. There are many reviews and discussions about both models so I suggest you read on them and see which one suits you better.

As for NAB and the immediate future, while I am not up to speed on video cam rumors, but I believe that both of them should be getting replacements soon. The Sony will show the FS7000 at NAB which will be more of a big brother to the FS100 rather than a replacement.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

I disagree with much of the advice given here. The most direct path to your goals, it seems to me, would be the 5D Mk III plus a simple adapter for your Nikon glass.

The dedicated video cameras can't do what a full frame dSLR can do; if you want that cinematic look, then a FF dSLR gives that to you in spades. The dedicated video cameras -- well they look like video. Unless you want to pony up for the high end cameras, such as the C300.

The Mk III has an advantage of between 2 and 3 stops over the D800 at high ISO, as demonstrated in that video. It also doesn't suffer from moiré or that ugly shadow noise we've seen from the D800. I don't think any dedicated video camera will give you the low light capabilities of the Mk III; that very large sensor gives it a huge advantage in light-gathering capability.

I'm not certain what you mean when you say you'd wind up spending a whole lot more on the Canon; there's a $500 price difference, sure, but since you're only shooting video, you can use the lenses you already own. I'd recommend an adapter without the focus confirm chip, because a lot of these adapters don't work with the Mk III. I know, because I own one with this issue. You'll be focusing manually using Live View anyway, so you don't need the chip. Save your money.

The other options mentioned by people were all smaller format cameras that would require the purchase of more lenses, and the loss of that quality you're probably after in your movies. Not to mention that they're very unlikely to outperform the Mk III at, say, ISO 12800.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I disagree with much of the advice given here. The most direct path to your goals, it seems to me, would be the 5D Mk III plus a simple adapter for your Nikon glass.

The dedicated video cameras can't do what a full frame dSLR can do; if you want that cinematic look, then a FF dSLR gives that to you in spades. The dedicated video cameras -- well they look like video. Unless you want to pony up for the high end cameras, such as the C300.

The largest contributor to the "cinematic feel" is a large sensor. The FS 100 has the same sensor-size as film. 3 years ago, you had to go to a DSLR to get large sensor, shallow DOF video. This is no longer the case.

There are a bunch of good comparisons out there. Watch the demo videos and get a feel for what might work for you. Who knows, maybe Canon will blow you mind with their new cinema DSLR. Hopefully that will be announced soon.

 

[Policar]

The dedicated video cameras can't do what a full frame dSLR can do; if you want that cinematic look, then a FF dSLR gives that to you in spades. The dedicated video cameras -- well they look like video. Unless you want to pony up for the high end cameras, such as the C300.

The FS100 is about $4500 and has a super35 (APS-C) chip, derived from the F3. It's a killer sensor, amazing SNR, low skew, and the exact same size sensor as super35 film. I don't think it gets much more cinematic than that, short of actually shooting on film.

The 5D III and Nikon adapters is the easiest option, but for high quality work it's a bit hacked together. I know. I own this set up and plan to sell it soon for something else. It's not bad, but with the FS100 available so affordably it's hard to recommend.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

The largest contributor to the "cinematic feel" is a large sensor. The FS 100 has the same sensor-size as film. 3 years ago, you had to go to a DSLR to get large sensor, shallow DOF video. This is no longer the case.

There are a bunch of good comparisons out there. Watch the demo videos and get a feel for what might work for you. Who knows, maybe Canon will blow you mind with their new cinema DSLR. Hopefully that will be announced soon.

The same sensor size as some film, but the FF sensor gives the director that much more control, and over a stop more light gathering and DOF range. I think of my FF dSLR as being a tiny VistaVision camera.

 

[Axilrod]

Man I would wait a few months unless you have something really pressing that absolutely requires a 5DIII or D800 (and even then you could rent one). Both of those cameras are still cameras at their core, so there is no sense paying loads of money for 61pt AF or anything like that just to end up shooting video with it.

That being said, I think there are going to be some interesting cameras coming out over the course of the rest of the year. I would be willing to bet that there might be something that will better suit your needs than the D800 or the 5DIII. Sure they may end up being a little more expensive, but if you don't have to buy rigs and all the other stuff you have to get to make a DSLR feel like a video camera, then it still could end up being "cheaper."

 

[preppyak]

I disagree with much of the advice given here. The most direct path to your goals, it seems to me, would be the 5D Mk III plus a simple adapter for your Nikon glass.

By that same token, why wouldnt he just get a 5DII with that same adaptor, save $1500, and use that $1500 to complete his lens collection. An 85mm Nikon prime and probably something else on the wide end and he'd be better off than a 5dIII (which is more of a stills update than a video update) and no extra lenses.

That said, I agree with the others. If you have the money, get a dedicated video camera. There are adapters for the FS-100 and AF-100. With them, you can shoot uncompressed, which will improve your resolution and your workflow.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

I disagree with much of the advice given here. The most direct path to your goals, it seems to me, would be the 5D Mk III plus a simple adapter for your Nikon glass.

By that same token, why wouldnt he just get a 5DII with that same adaptor, save $1500, and use that $1500 to complete his lens collection. An 85mm Nikon prime and probably something else on the wide end and he'd be better off than a 5dIII (which is more of a stills update than a video update) and no extra lenses.

Because he values low light performance and noted the D800 does poorly here. So does the Mk II, compared to the Mk III.

Is nobody actually reading what the OP says he wants and needs?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The largest contributor to the "cinematic feel" is a large sensor. The FS 100 has the same sensor-size as film. 3 years ago, you had to go to a DSLR to get large sensor, shallow DOF video. This is no longer the case.

There are a bunch of good comparisons out there. Watch the demo videos and get a feel for what might work for you. Who knows, maybe Canon will blow you mind with their new cinema DSLR. Hopefully that will be announced soon.

The same sensor size as some film, but the FF sensor gives the director that much more control, and over a stop more light gathering and DOF range. I think of my FF dSLR as being a tiny VistaVision camera.

one difference is that vistavision delivered slightly more detail

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I disagree with much of the advice given here. The most direct path to your goals, it seems to me, would be the 5D Mk III plus a simple adapter for your Nikon glass.

By that same token, why wouldnt he just get a 5DII with that same adaptor, save $1500, and use that $1500 to complete his lens collection. An 85mm Nikon prime and probably something else on the wide end and he'd be better off than a 5dIII (which is more of a stills update than a video update) and no extra lenses.

Because he values low light performance and noted the D800 does poorly here. So does the Mk II, compared to the Mk III.

Is nobody actually reading what the OP says he wants and needs?

yeah 5D3 is a lot cleaner in terms of SNR than 5D2/D800

i still think from samples I've seen that it has a very video-looking sort of noise, they seem to bake in too much NR even with NR off or Low, rather than giving a nice tight noise pattern, they could easily fix that in firmware (unless maybe it's the codec that is blurring shadow tight dot noise into video-looking smears?)

 

[Stephen Melvin]

one difference is that vistavision delivered slightly more detail

Oh man, have you seen the Blu-Ray restoration of North by Northwest? Absolutely breathtaking. I'm sorry that VistaVision wasn't used for more movies.

 

[Ew]

I disagree with much of the advice given here. The most direct path to your goals, it seems to me, would be the 5D Mk III plus a simple adapter for your Nikon glass.

By that same token, why wouldnt he just get a 5DII with that same adaptor, save $1500, and use that $1500 to complete his lens collection. An 85mm Nikon prime and probably something else on the wide end and he'd be better off than a 5dIII (which is more of a stills update than a video update) and no extra lenses.

That said, I agree with the others. If you have the money, get a dedicated video camera. There are adapters for the FS-100 and AF-100. With them, you can shoot uncompressed, which will improve your resolution and your workflow.

5D2 = no 50fps, worse rolling shutter.
Use the $1500 for 2nd body (used 7D) and lens

DSLR vid is also really turned into a culture of its own.

You really have the fanatics, pairing 5D2 w/ almost anything. The grain structure on 7D can be pushed to look like 16mm - again if that is your thing. Finished production last year where 5D2 was b-cam (flyovers mostly) for Arri4 35mm film. All worked out in post.

I like the advice on waiting through NAB. Try to rent or borrow. Anything beyond the $6k mark is bought mostly by productions and rental houses. Although you do find $58k epics and $80k alexas in private hands - its just not that common.

 

[Matthew19]

The Fs100 and the other super 35mm are cinematic. The full frame 5d has something that is different than that. No other camera can do it. Watch the season 6 finale of House, at the end when he is in the bathroom, to me, nothing else can look like that. Of course, there are tons of downsides. Even GH2 spanks the 5D in sharpness and resolution.