Help with upgrade from T3i?

[Hawk]

Thanks for all the help so far!

I may just try lens rentals and see how it goes with the A7II. It would be alot cheaper to just try it then just buy it flat out.

The Sony 70-200 is what I would run with on it and maybe a couple fast primes. Just to try it out. Like I said if the iq and noise is a little better than my T3i I will be happy.

I will try the older one too I think just to make sure. I know I am on the Canon forum so lol. I just think the 5D is too big for my daily. And to have that much $ tied up in a camera I wouldn't take many places kinda ruins it for me. The A6000 deserves another look to I think. I am waiting for a couple websites I read to get their A7II reviews up.

 

[WIDEnet]

I would be careful about that kind of incendary [sic] libellous [sic] post, which makes no sense.

I may have been a bit over the top, and to be honest, it's not like I can 100% blame Canon for doing it, as it would make certain business sense--if most of their competitors did the same thing (which they certainly didn't). But libelous? Perhaps the laws are different where you live, but in my country in order to prove libel against a public entity, the statement must not only have caused harm, be provably false, and was made with disregard for the facts and without adequate research (which I will argue is not the case), but, for a public entity like Canon, it must also be made with the intent to do harm, which it was not--it is aimed to either spur Canon into action, or else advise people not to put up with them any longer.

Now, on the other hand, a classic example of a libelous statement is accusing someone of a crime on a false basis, and since I am a private individual, I would not have to prove malice (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one). However, I assure you I have no interest in doing so given I try to value an honest debate and a collective search for the truth rather than petty bickering, values which I hope we both share. In that spirit, allow me to respond to your claims.

Why did they even bother putting on headphone jacks if they are so hell-bent on crippling the 5D3. Why give various GoP patterns if they are so keen to force every Philip Bloom wannabe onto C series cameras?

Those are small though still useful upgrades (though the headphone jack should have been there from the beginning). But they had to add something to make it somewhat of an upgrade on the video side from the 5DIII, and pointing out the few things they did add just distracts from everything they leave out relative to the competition. Sure, Canon could get away with it just fine and few would complain--IF their competition did the same. But Sony, Panasonic, Blackmagic, and even old boy Nikon didn't stand still. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter if they have new GoP settings if every one of them looks a lot softer and mushier compared to the competition.

It's primarily a DSLR. For Stills. The AA filter is designed for stills. This is the weakest link in the 5D3 chain as far as video goes. If you want to hack a 5D3 properly, have the stock AA removed and replaced with quartz glass. ML can only go so far.

The OLPF does make a difference, sure; I've read about people who tried it. But if that really is the main reason the 5D3's 1080p output looks worse than typical 720p, not to mention any of its competitors, why is it that you can get breathtaking results with ML Raw video, at least equalizing the playing field with its brethren, if not more so. And why is it that those competitors (GH4, NX1, recent Nikons, Sony A7, etc.). as much "still" cameras as the 5DIII, can produce significantly more detailed video with their built-in codecs and processing, yet still maintain excellent stills quality as well? Do all these "still" cameras have "video" OLPFs? Or is something else at play? No, I don't think Canon is deliberatly going in and turning on some "mushy video" setting in the firmware, but clearly their processing pipeline is not delivering on the goods like most of the competition.

Even a hacked 5D3 cannot compete with the C series. These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters.

Not sure where you are getting the idea of a "hacked" 5D3; i.e. one running modified firmware. If you are referring to ML, the latter is more properly a firmware addon, it runs on top of the Canon code without altering or replacing it at all. To compare it to smartphones, a "hack" would be somewhere between jailbreaking an iPhone and making it run Andriod, while ML is more like running an app from a non-officially-supported appstore. Camera companies are, in some ways, acting like Apple before they opened up the iPhone to developers. Should Canon officially tell everyone to use ML, without any kind of disclaimer or warning? No. Does it involve some amount of risk and complexity for less advanced users? Sure, but in the appstore paradigm they can choose whether to install it, after reading the disclaimer. And I've seen more cases where ML has been used to recover a supposedly dead camera than "brick" a camera itself.

These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters.

I certainly have to agree with your point here, that no matter how good the 5D3's IQ in RAW with ML (which matches up surprisingly well with the C300), the form factor is not that of a dedicated "video camera" which has some significant disadvantages for "video" style shooting. That's why I keep my old-style, small sensor three chip AC160A around, and it still gets plenty of use (as I would hope it would, considering I paid as much for it used as the 5DIII goes for new these days). Due to the disadvantages you cite, I would not really consider it for everyday B-roll shooting.

However, for low- and mid-level filmmakers (and those aspiring to be), with RAW video it can be a great tool--not a perfect tool, but an incredible value for those who can't afford a C300. 8 MP or 22MP chip, the 5DIII's raw output stacks up very well with the C300 and even in some respects the 1DC--though even the old GH2 isn't all that far behind in pure detail, "still" camera or not. Those folks are mostly going to be using an external recorder or at least an external pre-amp for audio anyway, and have plenty of time to screw the right ND filter onto their lens beforehand. Not sure what the advantage of having a higher "base" ISO is for video, unless there is something I'm missing or my knowledge of the inner workings of CMOS chips are way off. And "interlace codecs for TV work"? Again not an issue for the target audience, (and won't be for anyone 10-20 years from now) and even if not, is 30 PsF really that bad? (Though it is of course trivial to pulldown 1080i30 from 1080p60 shot by most of the competition and the 7DII, not to mention all those small sensor cameras for many years now.)

Yep. Your argument stacks up less and less the more you look at the facts.

Unless my argument is "Canon should have made the 5DIII into the perfect high end television camera" I'm not sure how much the statements presented really weaken it.

Surely a 2K version of a C500 is a C300? The 5D3 matches the C300? Close. But no cigar. If you need 50i. (Which the broadcasters are looking for.) If you want hassle free audio.

Not exactly, since the C300 can't shoot RAW internally or externally, only XF (50 Mbps MPEG-2 4:2:2) internally or up to uncompressed 4:2:2 externally. Plus, it can't even shoot 1080p60 like all the new Nikon "still cameras," not to mention all those small sensor camcorders. Does the C300 have a slight edge in sharpness/picture quality SootC? Quite possibly. when it comes to flexibility in the grading suite, 5D3 RAW is unbeatable. Plus, the 5DIII's larger sensor and possibility of recording using the full sensor area make it very difficult to beat when coupled with anamorphic lenses.

Hassle-free audio? How much more "hassle" really is it to plug your XLRs into your external recorder rather than your main camera and remember to press play? Considerably less "hassle" then having wireless mic receivers or XLR cables dangling off your camera, methinks. Sure, having good onboard audio is critical for ENG style shoots and even a lot of documentary production, not to mention day to day corporate work. That's why I'm not giving up on my AC160A anytime soon. But again, those sorts of folks are the ones likely to either have the budget for a C300, be using their 3-chip small sensor ENG camera, or have the time to deal with it.

Canon have a chimera product with video SLRs. Their DSLRs can do great things, even the humble T3i in the right hands. I would have bought a 5D3 but I'm probably going to get a c100 and ninja instead. Which is more on a par with a c300 than a 5D3 will ever be.

Undoubtedly true; recently I saw a short film shot with a 550D that got featured on various sites. Sure it's possible to avoid the aliasing/moire and stylistically mitigate the softness. But why force us to deal with these problems when the other manufacturers and Canon itself demonstrates that they can do much, much better for the same price? I've heard a lot of good things about the C100 + Ninja combo, and it seems it may beat an internally recorded C300 since they use the same sensor. And for many uses like the ones mentioned above, a C100 (+ Ninja) offers a good deal more in usability than a 5DIII, and for not too much more money. But for cinematic productions, can it beat the 5D3 in IQ when there's grading involved? Sure doesn't look like it.

Canon aren't crippling their DSLRs. Did you read the bit on the ML page about the warranty? You are using your camera beyond specification. Fair do's. Lots of folk are without apparant problem.

Again, I don't mean "crippling" as in introducing deliberate softness within the image pipeline, but instead refusing to add features in software that would not take a huge amount of effort to greatly improve the camera's suitability for video, which due to Canon's hesitation ML has taken into their own hands. The camera is perfectly capable of doing better--ML is the proof of that. Even if RAW video is too much for the camera to handle (And many, many people have found that it is not), even proper 1080p output and video features in software (better audio control, actually informative live view displays, focusing and exposure aids, RAW histogram/zebras/spotmeter/ETTR, etc) are missing and Canon refuses to add them like many other manufacturers have.

I think they are trying to suit too many markets. In use a C series or even an unfashionable ENG camera often makes 100x more sense that a tiny DSLR hiding inside a mecanno set on a plinth.

Not sure about the "mecanno set on a plinth" part but I certainly agree that the 5DIII is not and could never be suitable for many purposes--like I say, that's what my unfashionable AC160A is for. I'm not at all saying its right for you or me, or could be if Canon let it. But for cinematic style work, the 5D3 has considerable potential that Canon is not--or is refusing to--exploit, a fact which its competitors are certainly taking advantage of. Of course, Canon isn't really trying at all, while ML has pushed the bounds past what we ever thought was possible for both stills and video.

And your bit about not competing with Sony or Panasonic or Nikon. So what. Most folk don't need or want 4K yet & none of them take EF lenses.

Funny how I just remember you saying...

There are a couple of problems with the a7s. No internal 4k recording.

and I responded that

Personally I've considered 4K on consumer/prosumer cams to be mostly just the new 3D, at least for my purposes

. In any case, I wasn't talking about 4K, just basic 1080p that looks like 1080p and not upscaled 720p at best. Lock in to the EF lenses (which are fantastic, I can certainly feel you there) is certainly a big thing keeping people in the Canon system, along with ML. But that doesn't help people just starting out in photography or video, Metabones and the like are getting better all the time (and with the Speed Booster, in some ways better than on the original Canon camera) and quite a few cameras now, even the $999 BMPCC, (not to mention the Axiom Beta) are offering EF mounts, removing a lot of the lock-in and removing one of the remaining reasons people have for sticking with Canon bodies. Plus, if Canon bodies suck there will be extra imputes to develop more and better lenses for other mounts.

We are just a *bit* off topic so I think I'll wrap it up here, and I apologize for the thread hijack Hawk. But if you don't believe me (and really, why should you) feel free to read, for example, one of Andrew Reid's articles over at EOSHD which make a lot of similar points. including, quite poignantly, "If it wasn’t for Magic Lantern I’d have sold my Canon gear." Sound familiar?

The only reason people use them anymore for video is ML.

I've even seen at least one article over at DPReview, which usually deals with "still" camera issues, that made exactly the same points.

So, to conclude? No, I don't think the 5D3, ML'd or not, improved or not, is or should be a perfect choice for everyone in terms of video. Quite the contrary, as I've said from the beginning. But I do think Canon could do a hell of a lot more to make it stand up to the competition and be much more useful to the people who've always wanted to love it, rather than trying to protect sales of their Cinema EOS line. In the end, the people this is really hurting aren't going to buy a C-something rather than a 5D3, they'll increasingly be ending up with someone other than Canon entirely.

 

[WIDEnet]

Hey Hawk, sorry again for going a bit off topic there. Back on topic, renting (assuming you're not paying too much) sounds like a great plan. I can pretty much guarantee you that the quality will assuredly be much better than your 600D, and if the lenses and the body work for you and don't outweigh (no pun intended) the smaller size, pass, and extra cash in your wallet, then go for it. I'm guessing you will want a mid-range zoom as well at some point, unless you want to be zooming with your feet all the time. But that's really up to you.

In any case, best of luck and let us know how goes!

 

[Hawk]

Thanks Wide.

Ya and again I don't know what to call the rainbow noise that my T3i produces at high iso. Even looking at some XT1 shots there is some noise but it seems to be more grain than red blue green splotches all over the mid tones and picture. Looking at alot of test shots from other cameras I see this same kinda effect of more black grain at high ISO not so much rainbow colors whatever you wanna call it.

As you said above it almost looks as I could get almost any mirror-less system and get better IQ and ISO performance than I have now. Nothing I shot the other day had that kinda noise. Even the XT1 with APSC at 6400 didnt show it at all. Little detail loss but no rainbows. Maybe I just have a screwy sensor in my camera.

 

[WIDEnet]

No probs!

Ya and again I don't know what to call the rainbow noise that my T3i produces at high iso. Even looking at some XT1 shots there is some noise but it seems to be more grain than red blue green splotches all over the mid tones and picture. Looking at alot of test shots from other cameras I see this same kinda effect of more black grain at high ISO not so much rainbow colors whatever you wanna call it.

Sorry I didn't explain that before. Those "rainbow splotches" are called chroma noise, which occurs essentially due to different amounts of noise in the different color channels of the image (red, green, and blue) which results in spurious colors appearing in the image (as opposed to luminance noise, where the noise is distributed evenly across color channels resulting in fluctuations in brightness but not colors. You probably don't see as much chroma noise on most cameras because it is usually easier to control without too much degradation, and chroma noise reduction may even be applied in-camera when displaying the RAW image (and of course certainly with the JPEGs).

In post, while chroma noise can be a lot more distracting in most cases, it is easier to control without suffering too much degradation in the final image. An application of the chroma noise reduction slider in LR/ACR will clean it right up. I've used values as high as 50 without too much noticeable degradation in image quality. Luma noise, however, is harder to clean up without the image looking unnaturally smooth and "plastically" and killing fine detail, but it can often be less objectionable if it is sufficiently random (rather than bands or patterns). On the 7D/550D for up to magazine-size prints and web use, I usually don't need to do luminance noise reduction unless above ISO 1600, or perhaps lower if needing to raise the exposure in post.

As you said above it almost looks as I could get almost any mirror-less system and get better IQ and ISO performance than I have now. I nothing I shot the other day had that kinda noise. Even the XT1 with APSC at 6400 didnt show it at all. Little detail loss but no rainbows.

Not so sure about that, but any one using a Sony APS-C sensor then probably yeah. A lot of them are micro-4/3rds (Olympus, Panasonic) so naturally they aren't going to be quite as good in low light, though I'd imagine they are still fairly competitive. Nikon 1 is even smaller, so I'd imagine with Nikon's secret sauce as of late they aren't going to be as good, simply due to the laws of physics. But the others, probably...and mirrorless has other advantages as well. Again, the big differentiation is to pick the one with the best lens system since that is MILC's big enduring weakness right now.

Maybe I just have a screwy sensor in my camera.

The technical term for that kind of sensor is "Canon" xD

It's just based on older technology that Canon so far has not sought to really improve. Around the time of the 7D and 550D, that sensor was pretty darn good for its day and format. But if you stick with exactly the same sensor technology for over 5 years. The "modern" 700D is an identical camera in all but name to the 650D that was released in summer 2012, 2 1/2 years ago, and has the same sensor going all the way back to the 550D, in the beginning of 2010 (as well as the 2009 7D). It's like if Canon took the original Digital Rebel (300D)'s 6 Mp sensor and essential features and kept using it all the way up until the 500D. Obviously that is a bit of an exaggeration and the pace of technology is always faster at the beginning, but it certainly isn't that slow owing to what we've been seeing from other manufacturers.

 

[Hawk]

Thanks for that post. Ya I wasn't going to go down as far as micro 4 3rds. I am looking at the A6000 now haha seems like a beast of a little camera with interchangeable lenses. Looks like it blows away the A7 for half the price. Nuts!

Well rats guess I could just buy one of each and use them all lol. The XT1 would be perfect if it was full frame but guess A7 is only FF choice. Just like my dials. Probably going to get the A7II with some fast primes and give it a try. If the XT1 had a zoom I would be stoked haha. Such is life.

 

[WIDEnet]

The A7 certainly has the IQ advantage over the A6000. But the latter is compatible with quite a few more lenses since both crop frame and full frame will work with it. Still not the best selection but if you can find ones that will fit your needs...just don't really expect to be doing a whole lot of bird photography with it. The other day I saw this random red shouldered hawk in my backyard so I figured I'd go out and shoot it. It was in a tree right above my garage and even leaning against the garage with my 70-200 on one of my crop frame 7Ds I still had to do some significant cropping to get the shot I wanted. And that was one big hawk, mind you!

Well rats guess I could just buy one of each and use them all lol.

Yeah...of course, that's the same day they'll make me the 20-200mm f/1.4L IS USM I've always wanted hahaha!

 

[Hawk]

Well lucky for me I feed alot of the birds I shoot so a 200 is plenty. I even have several hawks that land right in my yard and even look in my windows at me haha. So I don't have to reach to far to get to them. Also local college has alot of them you can get close and get some great shots @ 200 its like a preserve.

 

[Tinky]

I would be careful about that kind of incendary [sic] libellous [sic] post, which makes no sense.

I may have been a bit over the top, and to be honest, it's not like I can 100% blame Canon for doing it, as it would make certain business sense--if most of their competitors did the same thing (which they certainly didn't). But libelous? Perhaps the laws are different where you live, but in my country in order to prove libel against a public entity, the statement must not only have caused harm, be provably false, and was made with disregard for the facts and without adequate research (which I will argue is not the case), but, for a public entity like Canon, it must also be made with the intent to do harm, which it was not--it is aimed to either spur Canon into action, or else advise people not to put up with them any longer.

Now, on the other hand, a classic example of a libelous statement is accusing someone of a crime on a false basis, and since I am a private individual, I would not have to prove malice (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one). However, I assure you I have no interest in doing so given I try to value an honest debate and a collective search for the truth rather than petty bickering, values which I hope we both share. In that spirit, allow me to respond to your claims.

Why did they even bother putting on headphone jacks if they are so hell-bent on crippling the 5D3. Why give various GoP patterns if they are so keen to force every Philip Bloom wannabe onto C series cameras?

Those are small though still useful upgrades (though the headphone jack should have been there from the beginning). But they had to add something to make it somewhat of an upgrade on the video side from the 5DIII, and pointing out the few things they did add just distracts from everything they leave out relative to the competition. Sure, Canon could get away with it just fine and few would complain--IF their competition did the same. But Sony, Panasonic, Blackmagic, and even old boy Nikon didn't stand still. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter if they have new GoP settings if every one of them looks a lot softer and mushier compared to the competition.

It's primarily a DSLR. For Stills. The AA filter is designed for stills. This is the weakest link in the 5D3 chain as far as video goes. If you want to hack a 5D3 properly, have the stock AA removed and replaced with quartz glass. ML can only go so far.

The OLPF does make a difference, sure; I've read about people who tried it. But if that really is the main reason the 5D3's 1080p output looks worse than typical 720p, not to mention any of its competitors, why is it that you can get breathtaking results with ML Raw video, at least equalizing the playing field with its brethren, if not more so. And why is it that those competitors (GH4, NX1, recent Nikons, Sony A7, etc.). as much "still" cameras as the 5DIII, can produce significantly more detailed video with their built-in codecs and processing, yet still maintain excellent stills quality as well? Do all these "still" cameras have "video" OLPFs? Or is something else at play? No, I don't think Canon is deliberatly going in and turning on some "mushy video" setting in the firmware, but clearly their processing pipeline is not delivering on the goods like most of the competition.

Even a hacked 5D3 cannot compete with the C series. These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters.

Not sure where you are getting the idea of a "hacked" 5D3; i.e. one running modified firmware. If you are referring to ML, the latter is more properly a firmware addon, it runs on top of the Canon code without altering or replacing it at all. To compare it to smartphones, a "hack" would be somewhere between jailbreaking an iPhone and making it run Andriod, while ML is more like running an app from a non-officially-supported appstore. Camera companies are, in some ways, acting like Apple before they opened up the iPhone to developers. Should Canon officially tell everyone to use ML, without any kind of disclaimer or warning? No. Does it involve some amount of risk and complexity for less advanced users? Sure, but in the appstore paradigm they can choose whether to install it, after reading the disclaimer. And I've seen more cases where ML has been used to recover a supposedly dead camera than "brick" a camera itself.

These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters.

I certainly have to agree with your point here, that no matter how good the 5D3's IQ in RAW with ML (which matches up surprisingly well with the C300), the form factor is not that of a dedicated "video camera" which has some significant disadvantages for "video" style shooting. That's why I keep my old-style, small sensor three chip AC160A around, and it still gets plenty of use (as I would hope it would, considering I paid as much for it used as the 5DIII goes for new these days). Due to the disadvantages you cite, I would not really consider it for everyday B-roll shooting.

However, for low- and mid-level filmmakers (and those aspiring to be), with RAW video it can be a great tool--not a perfect tool, but an incredible value for those who can't afford a C300. 8 MP or 22MP chip, the 5DIII's raw output stacks up very well with the C300 and even in some respects the 1DC--though even the old GH2 isn't all that far behind in pure detail, "still" camera or not. Those folks are mostly going to be using an external recorder or at least an external pre-amp for audio anyway, and have plenty of time to screw the right ND filter onto their lens beforehand. Not sure what the advantage of having a higher "base" ISO is for video, unless there is something I'm missing or my knowledge of the inner workings of CMOS chips are way off. And "interlace codecs for TV work"? Again not an issue for the target audience, (and won't be for anyone 10-20 years from now) and even if not, is 30 PsF really that bad? (Though it is of course trivial to pulldown 1080i30 from 1080p60 shot by most of the competition and the 7DII, not to mention all those small sensor cameras for many years now.)

Yep. Your argument stacks up less and less the more you look at the facts.

Unless my argument is "Canon should have made the 5DIII into the perfect high end television camera" I'm not sure how much the statements presented really weaken it.

Surely a 2K version of a C500 is a C300? The 5D3 matches the C300? Close. But no cigar. If you need 50i. (Which the broadcasters are looking for.) If you want hassle free audio.

Not exactly, since the C300 can't shoot RAW internally or externally, only XF (50 Mbps MPEG-2 4:2:2) internally or up to uncompressed 4:2:2 externally. Plus, it can't even shoot 1080p60 like all the new Nikon "still cameras," not to mention all those small sensor camcorders. Does the C300 have a slight edge in sharpness/picture quality SootC? Quite possibly. when it comes to flexibility in the grading suite, 5D3 RAW is unbeatable. Plus, the 5DIII's larger sensor and possibility of recording using the full sensor area make it very difficult to beat when coupled with anamorphic lenses.

Hassle-free audio? How much more "hassle" really is it to plug your XLRs into your external recorder rather than your main camera and remember to press play? Considerably less "hassle" then having wireless mic receivers or XLR cables dangling off your camera, methinks. Sure, having good onboard audio is critical for ENG style shoots and even a lot of documentary production, not to mention day to day corporate work. That's why I'm not giving up on my AC160A anytime soon. But again, those sorts of folks are the ones likely to either have the budget for a C300, be using their 3-chip small sensor ENG camera, or have the time to deal with it.

Canon have a chimera product with video SLRs. Their DSLRs can do great things, even the humble T3i in the right hands. I would have bought a 5D3 but I'm probably going to get a c100 and ninja instead. Which is more on a par with a c300 than a 5D3 will ever be.

Undoubtedly true; recently I saw a short film shot with a 550D that got featured on various sites. Sure it's possible to avoid the aliasing/moire and stylistically mitigate the softness. But why force us to deal with these problems when the other manufacturers and Canon itself demonstrates that they can do much, much better for the same price? I've heard a lot of good things about the C100 + Ninja combo, and it seems it may beat an internally recorded C300 since they use the same sensor. And for many uses like the ones mentioned above, a C100 (+ Ninja) offers a good deal more in usability than a 5DIII, and for not too much more money. But for cinematic productions, can it beat the 5D3 in IQ when there's grading involved? Sure doesn't look like it.

Canon aren't crippling their DSLRs. Did you read the bit on the ML page about the warranty? You are using your camera beyond specification. Fair do's. Lots of folk are without apparant problem.

Again, I don't mean "crippling" as in introducing deliberate softness within the image pipeline, but instead refusing to add features in software that would not take a huge amount of effort to greatly improve the camera's suitability for video, which due to Canon's hesitation ML has taken into their own hands. The camera is perfectly capable of doing better--ML is the proof of that. Even if RAW video is too much for the camera to handle (And many, many people have found that it is not), even proper 1080p output and video features in software (better audio control, actually informative live view displays, focusing and exposure aids, RAW histogram/zebras/spotmeter/ETTR, etc) are missing and Canon refuses to add them like many other manufacturers have.

I think they are trying to suit too many markets. In use a C series or even an unfashionable ENG camera often makes 100x more sense that a tiny DSLR hiding inside a mecanno set on a plinth.

Not sure about the "mecanno set on a plinth" part but I certainly agree that the 5DIII is not and could never be suitable for many purposes--like I say, that's what my unfashionable AC160A is for. I'm not at all saying its right for you or me, or could be if Canon let it. But for cinematic style work, the 5D3 has considerable potential that Canon is not--or is refusing to--exploit, a fact which its competitors are certainly taking advantage of. Of course, Canon isn't really trying at all, while ML has pushed the bounds past what we ever thought was possible for both stills and video.

And your bit about not competing with Sony or Panasonic or Nikon. So what. Most folk don't need or want 4K yet & none of them take EF lenses.

Funny how I just remember you saying...

There are a couple of problems with the a7s. No internal 4k recording.

and I responded that

Personally I've considered 4K on consumer/prosumer cams to be mostly just the new 3D, at least for my purposes

. In any case, I wasn't talking about 4K, just basic 1080p that looks like 1080p and not upscaled 720p at best. Lock in to the EF lenses (which are fantastic, I can certainly feel you there) is certainly a big thing keeping people in the Canon system, along with ML. But that doesn't help people just starting out in photography or video, Metabones and the like are getting better all the time (and with the Speed Booster, in some ways better than on the original Canon camera) and quite a few cameras now, even the $999 BMPCC, (not to mention the Axiom Beta) are offering EF mounts, removing a lot of the lock-in and removing one of the remaining reasons people have for sticking with Canon bodies. Plus, if Canon bodies suck there will be extra imputes to develop more and better lenses for other mounts.

We are just a *bit* off topic so I think I'll wrap it up here, and I apologize for the thread hijack Hawk. But if you don't believe me (and really, why should you) feel free to read, for example, one of Andrew Reid's articles over at EOSHD which make a lot of similar points. including, quite poignantly, "If it wasn’t for Magic Lantern I’d have sold my Canon gear." Sound familiar?

The only reason people use them anymore for video is ML.

I've even seen at least one article over at DPReview, which usually deals with "still" camera issues, that made exactly the same points.

So, to conclude? No, I don't think the 5D3, ML'd or not, improved or not, is or should be a perfect choice for everyone in terms of video. Quite the contrary, as I've said from the beginning. But I do think Canon could do a hell of a lot more to make it stand up to the competition and be much more useful to the people who've always wanted to love it, rather than trying to protect sales of their Cinema EOS line. In the end, the people this is really hurting aren't going to buy a C-something rather than a 5D3, they'll increasingly be ending up with someone other than Canon entirely.

Go ahead and sue me. Libel actions always end well. For lawyers at least.

I have a theory: Anybody working at a level that requires uncompressed video is wasting their time with a 5d3.

Lots of people not thinking for themselves. I'll get on with being a cameraman, I'll let them get on with being DoPs for terrible short films that 5 folk watch on vimeo.

 

[wyldeguy]

Thanks Wide.

Ya and again I don't know what to call the rainbow noise that my T3i produces at high iso. Even looking at some XT1 shots there is some noise but it seems to be more grain than red blue green splotches all over the mid tones and picture. Looking at alot of test shots from other cameras I see this same kinda effect of more black grain at high ISO not so much rainbow colors whatever you wanna call it.

As you said above it almost looks as I could get almost any mirror-less system and get better IQ and ISO performance than I have now. Nothing I shot the other day had that kinda noise. Even the XT1 with APSC at 6400 didnt show it at all. Little detail loss but no rainbows. Maybe I just have a screwy sensor in my camera.

Hawk I have a T3i and mine does that multi colored noise in higher ISO. Being my first dslr I assumed that was normal given that making pixels work harder can make them register higher than they should and you get pixel. On my 7D mark ii I have not noticed this effect throughout the entire ISO range but I will go back and check.

 

[Tinky]

The T3i is now 5 year old tech (18MP and Digic 4, even if T3i was launched later) I see a huge improvement in higher isos, less moire and less jello with the digic 5 cameras I use, looking forward to seeing what digic 6 can do.

 

[gsealy]

Hey all,

I am a long time photographer with film in several bodys like the OM-1. I used point and shoots for light work for awhile but loved shooting film.

...

Three years ago I got a T3i as a gift and grabbed the 17-55 F2.8 and 70-200 IS F4 for it. I mostly shoot Street Landscapes Wildlife and Cars. I have been happy with the T3i thus far but I am getting really sick of the noise at higher ISOs. I shoot in poor light quite bit which makes matters even worse. I usually resize for computer screens and anything past 1600 ISO is just a mess with this cam shooting RAW. Some of it I can fix in post with lightroom but at 3200 everything for me becomes unusable. If I correct in post it takes enough that the picture is now soft and looks like a painting haha.

...

I was also looking at a X100T as a kick around old school camera as I like manual controls alot more than the digital DSLR menus and stuff. I guess I am just old school and like that instead of digging through menus.

Thanks for any help!

I recently purchased a X100T and I use it for street photography. It definitely looks like a film camera. Almost everybody comes up to me and says "Wow, when are you going to go digital? Look at that. You are still using film." And I love it. When I do go out on the street people think I am some dorky tourist and they don't take me seriously. People don't take tourists seriously and so they don't feel threatened. I can take pictures of whatever with no negative feedback.

The thing is the X100T is a great camera. It takes great photos and it absolutely quiet. The internally processed JPGs are darn good although I also get the RAW files too. I shoot in aperture priority with f4 and with auto ISO (max at 3200), which works exceedingly well in the street environment because the light can change quickly and I don't want to look like I am a serious photographer fussing with settings.

So if you have extra cash, then definitely consider the X100T. It's a hoot.

 

[WIDEnet]

Well lucky for me I feed alot of the birds I shoot so a 200 is plenty. I even have several hawks that land right in my yard and even look in my windows at me haha. So I don't have to reach to far to get to them. Also local college has alot of them you can get close and get some great shots @ 200 its like a preserve.

Well then you certainly don't sound like you are focal length limited then--same with me and my hawks. Again, do keep in mind that on crop fame a 200mm is effectively 60% longer than on full frame, so you won't have quite as much reach. So you get the same field of view on 200mm on full frame as 125mm on crop. But in return the better IQ does allow to crop somewhat more than you would be able too, and it sounds like you have enough leeway that it won't be a problem. If you like, you can always try out 125 (or 135) mm on your 70-200 to get a feel for it.

Well, Tinky, you really had to quote my entire whopping message just to get in a few lines of dismissive rebuttal, didn't you?

Go ahead and sue me. Libel actions always end well. For lawyers at least.

True, true. But like I said...

I assure you I have no interest in doing so given I try to value an honest debate and a collective search for the truth rather than petty bickering, values which I hope we both share.

I have a theory: Anybody working at a level that requires uncompressed video is wasting their time with a 5d3.

Are they? Shooting certain subjects, perhaps. But I'd tend to think that the areas where the form-factor, control, monitoring and audio disadvantages of the 5D3 that you mentioned would really matter, like ENG, run and gun, corporate, event video, and sports/action and the like would not be those where you'd need Raw, uncompressed, or even in many cases Prores or DNxHD. Whereas in pre-scripted, short-form productions needing high quality and maximum latitude in post, what the ML'ed 5D3 delivers with high IQ, tons of latitude, and access to the same wide selection of lenses as the C-series and other cinema cameras is considerably more important than minor "convenience" flaws that are usually not as critical for those sorts of productions.

Lots of people not thinking for themselves. I'll get on with being a cameraman, I'll let them get on with being DoPs for terrible short films that 5 folk watch on vimeo.

Well, so shall I, but I'll do so without being unduly critical of a ton of folks out there who produce an enviable end product that, in many cases, are quite widely distributed and acclaimed. They may not be me, or you, but why not let them do their thing and you and I do ours? And why don't we both focus on staying on topic and helping the OP rather than going way off on a tangent about DSLR video that the OP never asked about? Deal?

Hawk I have a T3i and mine does that multi colored noise in higher ISO. Being my first dslr I assumed that was normal given that making pixels work harder can make them register higher than they should and you get pixel. On my 7D mark ii I have not noticed this effect throughout the entire ISO range but I will go back and check.

It's a bit more complex than that but yeah on any sensor of a given per-pixel light collecting area, lower incoming light low enough and you'll get noise, luma and chroma, in the raw data coming right off the sensor. The effects your describing between cameras do very depending on whether you've shooting JPEGs, RAW, and video and on what devices you are viewing the resulting RAW--plus whatever preprocessing the camera is doing on the "RAW" data, as sometimes occurs. Due to the limitations of physics, the 7DII doesn't have all that much lower noise coming straight off the sensor. However, JPEG NR performance is greatly improved with the 2x Digic 6 vs. 1x Digic 4 600D, the RAW display might be tweaked, and I know for sure that the noise coming off the sensor, though quantitatively not much less, is much less objectionable in appearance due to it being more evenly distributed and random rather than exhibiting pronounced banding artifacts. So that could be what are seeing...any number of variables at play here.

The T3i is now 5 year old tech (18MP and Digic 4, even if T3i was launched later) I see a huge improvement in higher isos, less moire and less jello with the digic 5 cameras I use, looking forward to seeing what digic 6 can do.

I assume you mean in video (or JPEG), but certainly true like I mentioned.

I recently purchased a X100T and I use it for street photography...So if you have extra cash, then definitely consider the X100T. It's a hoot.

I've heard much the same from any number of folks; the X100T sounds just perfect for street photography and perhaps a lot of travel work too. So if you have the extra money then go for it, and perhaps you could survive with just that and maybe your 600D if that is the significant majority of what you do. But since you mentioned you shoot a variety of subjects including landscapes (need something wider than 35mm-equivalent), birds (definitely need something longer), and certain types of travel photography (more focal length flexibility, though the X100T would certainly be great for a lot of that like Gsealy says). So you'd still need at least one interchangeable lens camera of some sort, and one with lower noise than your 600D since you say you print or display very large.

 

[Tinky]

I'm between an iphone and an ipad most of time. Lousy select and cut controls.

The clue to the video bit was jello.

 

[WIDEnet]

I'm between an iphone and an ipad most of time. Lousy select and cut controls.

You have my sympathy; I had a iPad Air that I won in a contest and it sure was cool but not so great for anything involving a lot of typing and copy/pasting. Which, as you've probably noticed, is something I do a lot. Given its limitaions (and a bit of LBA haha) I ended up selling it shortly after to fund more lens purchases. Same reason I don't have an iPhone...I just think of how many lenses I could buy with that money. But I could certainly see why someone would have one...just not for me I guess.

The clue to the video bit was jello.

Yup. Moire also clued me in...though there are significant noise improvements in JPEG so I hear.

 

[Tinky]

it's a mix of spatial and temporal compression for the videos, so if the spatial bit is better in video, it follows hopefully that it should also be better for stills. Although I generally shoot CR2 stills unless they are for snash like continuity.

 

[WIDEnet]

Technically the improvements in Digic would be applied at the image processing stage for videos and photos, as compression for video and JPEGs are handled on a separate dedicated chip and are separate routines for video and stills. But your point is well-taken. I used to shoot RAW + JPEG but now I never bother since it's just more hassle and less buffer depth for no real gain.

 

[Tinky]

technically the algorithms for jpeg stills and motion jpeg video frames are both spatial forms of compression, with the motion jpeg adding temporal compression across multiple groups of frames, so thanks yeah, it does follow. Thanks.

 

[Hawk]

After much deliberation I think I am going to grab the XT-1 with a couple primes and the new 50-150MM F2.8. I really like the old school look and the noise still looks better than my T3i with no banding. I love the all metal lenses and bodies. More like my old OM1 and other film cameras that I love. Looking at the sample images online they look better than my t3i at higher iso.

The A7II looks good but I am just not convinced its a mature enough system and the lack of lenses makes me go meh. I see alot of people liking the IQ but seems like it has terrible slow focus and the XT1 even shoots faster FPS for less $$$. The people I see liking the A7 are using Leica or other legacy lenses. I don't really wanna pay another 300+ for an adapter so I can put a monster DSLR lens on it. Ruins point of mirrorless to me.

 

[WIDEnet]

After much deliberation I think I am going to grab the XT-1 with a couple primes and the new 50-150MM F2.8. I really like the old school look and the noise still looks better than my T3i with no banding. I love the all metal lenses and bodies. More like my old OM1 and other film cameras that I love. Looking at the sample images online they look better than my t3i at higher iso.

The A7II looks good but I am just not convinced its a mature enough system and the lack of lenses makes me go meh. I see alot of people liking the IQ but seems like it has terrible slow focus and the XT1 even shoots faster FPS for less $$$.

While I am not entirely convinced the Fuji X-mount is all that much more mature than the Sony E-mount, and the number of lenses listed for it on B&H is fewer than that for the comparable Sony APS-C E-mount, with some of the same limitations, you might at least get a bit more stability. Who knows at this point--you really have to compare the lens lineups offered by both and see which fits you best (which I presume you have).

You really can't compare the A7 and the X-T1--although the original A7 may be the same nominal price as the X-T1, the former is full-frame with the advantages and disadvantages that come with it, while the latter is APS-C. A more accurate comparison would be that between the A6000 and the X-T1, and while I can't say I've pored over the details of each one's spec sheet, spec-wise the A6000 looks like at least a match for the Fuji, though the latter does appear offer better build quality and a few more "professional" features. Although the X-T1 does offer it's X-Trans sensor mask, some people seem not to be so much of a fan and regardless, given the sensor within is an older model carried over from the previous generation for the Fuji, it appears likely that the Sony has at least somewhat of an advantage where IQ is concerned, and in any case I doubt the Fuji offers all that much more than your 600D once post-processed correctly (though probably some improvement).

Personally, I and a lot of other people are not a big fan of the dedicated on-top dials approach for your main exposure settings--while I normally prefer as many dedicated hardware controls as possible for various functions, and thus something like the D300 just tickles my pickle with how many dedicated dials you get for various shooting settings versus the more spartan 7D, I find the multi-control wheel approach Canon and the other camera companies currently use to be much more efficient and flexible than the old-fashioned dedicated dials based approach reminiscent of the 70s and 80s, as would most "eye in the finder, finger on the shutter" kind of shooters who like me consider the camera an extension of their bodies, moving from thought to execution instantly, which is pretty much a necessity for an event shooter and spare-time PJ like me. It's especially crippling in portrait orientation, grip or no. But there are some people, particularly those shooting in a much slower, methodical style (those that with subjects with which they can afford to, anyways), that love it--and it sure sounds like you might be one of those people, and if you are sure you are, then go for it.

The big difference, though, is that right now, the price of the A6000 $548 at B&H) is less than half of the roughly comparable X-T1 (nominally 1299, though nominally $100 less with a rebate of some sort). Of course, if money is no object and you are sure about the X-T1, then go for it, but you could buy several good primes for that price difference, or a A7 which would would give you IQ more in line with what you are looking for. So again, it's really up to you, and if you really love the X-T1 and feel like you can live with the cost and compromises then who am I not stop you, but I at least urge you to consider what you are sacrificing in return for that specific set of ergonomics in terms of cost, IQ, and other features. I would also advise you read through threads like this one if you haven't already to get some additional perspectives on both sides of the story.

technically the algorithms for jpeg stills and motion jpeg video frames are both spatial forms of compression, with the motion jpeg adding temporal compression across multiple groups of frames, so thanks yeah, it does follow.

Of course, what you said is in itself mostly true, though I'm not sure how it's relevant to our previous discussion. Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) does not in fact use any temporal (interframe) compression; it's in fact just a bunch of individual JPEG files inside a container with slightly different headers/metadata. If you are in fact referring to DSLR video that of course uses an entirely different set of spatial and temporal compression standards, defined in MPEG-4 Part 10 AVC, and popularly still known as H.264. Not sure about the JPEG compressor but from ML's research that the H.264 compression in Canon's DSLRs is performed on an separate, dedicated chip, downstream of the DIGIC image processor in the image pipeline. M

y point in saying this, which it appears I could have been a lot clearer on, was that the H.264 encoder, though the source of additional artifacts and poor encoding performance on its own (and potentially some of the softness I was complaining about earlier), this has little to do with the IQ improvements you cited (less jellocam, mainly a function of the sensor readout architecture, better NR which is the responsibility of the Digic image processor, and less moire which could potentially be a combination of both) since those as cited are introduced or corrected earlier in the image/video pipeline, using some elements potentially shared by both the video and JPEG pathways, unlike the encoders which are entirely distinct.