I just can't comprehend some of the negativity on the 5d3...

[Ponte506]

I can promise you this isn't a complaint, I'm just thoroughly confused at what people who are looking for a way to make short films/documentaries/etc. have to worry about when it comes to the 5d Mk. III when we already have major production examples of its quality in both Hollywood and Television.

I am as new as they come in regards to DSLR's and pro-sumer cinematography, so perhaps I'm being severely naive, but if we already have proof of the pro quality that the 5DII was able to produce, what's with the "regretting this purchase" air that I'm seeing from so many people?

If any of the doubters have seen the "House M.D." episode "Help Me", it was entirely shot on the 5d MKII with Cannon Primes and a few zooms. Even while watching a sub-par quality rip on the internet of the episode, I could not believe how filmic the episode looked. They weren't using $3k Cine lenses, they weren't using some crazy PL rigged mounts; they were using relatively standard glass. On top of that, for anyone that's seen "Act of Valor" can also see a lot of the amazing footage the 5d2 was able to conjure up, most ALL of the first person helmet cam shots as well as a notable scene in which one of the main villains is observing a warehouse full of bomb-makers.

I think a lot of people don't realize just how much post makes a difference. While I understand that House and Act of Valor were shot using studio lighting equipment (just like any major production), why is there so much flak being shot at the 5d3 when it's predecessor churned out filmic quality pieces that I described? Is that notion being completely ignored for the sake of comparing spreadsheets with sensor sizes, codecs, and other specs? It's almost as bad as the PC Overclocking community, disregarding well established products such as cooling radiators and water blocks just because something else came out that beats it by 1 degree Celsius. I'm relatively certain that everyone here can understand NO DSLR can match a $200k studio grade film camera, but once again, given produced examples there really should be nothing to complain about. Like I said, I'm pretty damn new to the DSLR market, but this is just my two cents.

Any thoughts?

 

[riogrande100]

Agreed

 

[psolberg]

As I said in another thread, we need to manage our expectations. What you say is correct but lets keep in mind a few things:

1) the 5DII had no competition so it was very easty to be the best at anything they did. This elevated its status beyond what its successor could achieve because there are now many alternatives and the market has opened in the high end with the REDs and sony FS100, C300 and others. The 5DIII simply can't repeat that success because the market has changed a lot. DSLR video is now a standard commodity and even affordable bodies like the GH2 + hack, will deliver quality video beyond what the 5DII/III do.

2) At release, 5DmkII's shallow dof at an affordable price was seen as the next big thing, and it was. Today you have a lot of choices for dslr video, often delivering equal or better quality to the 5DII/III. That shallow DOF look is no longer considered revolutionary or unique just by itself. You can't just shoot footage and get the instant "wow" anymore just because it was shot @ f/1.8. More advanced codecs, true 1080p resolution, and overcrank is where the industry is going. Nobody is standing still. Given the 5D line is primarily a still camera, it is at a dissadvantage from the start to the dedicated gear we see today and we'll see in the next decade. The sun is setting on the HDSRL revolution and it is unrealistic to expect the 5DIII to change the world the way the mkII did.

3) Hollywood is moving on from clumsy dslrs to dedicated video cameras that offer the same benefits and better quality and features. Sure they cost more, but the budgets are there when you consider how much is to shoot with real film and panavision or ultra high end sony equipment. Canon, Red, Sony, all know this. It makes no sense for them to try to be jacks of all trades but masters of none. These companies are out to make the best video cameras possible. HDRLS desinged for wedding and sport shooting under $4K, just aren't going to be able to keep up.

In summary, the 5DIII remains a great camera and without doubt it is capable of a lot in the right hands. But that is the case with just about every camera these days and this means the 5DIII won't stand out as much. If the reason peple are negative is because they wanted to see another video revolution from a still camera, they will need to bring down their expectations a lot from now on.

Now, you can dissagree, but the 5DmkII glory days are beyind us and this is obvious in the reception to this new camera. The world is different. It is time to accept it and move on. 5DIII, D800, GH2, whatever.

 

[Christian_Stella]

You definitely have to take the 5dIII smack talking with a grain of salt. 95% of these people counting the lines of resolution are not actually filming anything of substance with their camera to begin with.

There was a movie called Silent House that just came out. As a movie, it's awful... But I saw it in theaters because it's probably the first wide release movie shot 100% on the 5d. It looked pretty amazing on the big screen, when it was in focus. Their focus puller was atrocious!

Then there's an indie movie called Tiny Furniture that's pretty great all around. It just came out Criterion Collection.

With all cameras it is definitely about how you use them and with movies, no camera can save a bad story, bad acting, or bad sound.

As someone who has spent an entire year working on a feature film (The Battery) shot on the 5d2, I can understand the resolution gripes. When so many people are working so hard on something for so long and you are in control of the picture, you really want it to look the best it can possibly look. When we shot last year, I really didn't have any other options, so I have no regrets. But I will have to think long and hard about whether I'm renting a C300 for the next movie. I will say though that our crew just got together and watched just a 720p sample output of our final cut without color grading on a 16 foot screen with DLP projection and it was awesome.

When the 5d3 was announced, I made the decision that id rather be great at filming with the 5d than horrible shooting on the Red Scarlet as some people are tempted to jump to for resolution. I have been quite happy with my decision so far. Noise was my biggest problem with the 5d2 footage on my movie, so I am simply astounded by the leap that the 3 is in that respect. Not that the 2 was bad by any means in low light, it's just that we shot an entire movie in the woods away from electricity with no way to run a generator as it would have ruined the sound.

 

[darrellrhodesmiller]

the nikon d700 and d800 are VERY different cameras than the 5dmkII and 5dmkIII. youre comparing apples to oranges.

if you just look at the specs and compare yes.. nikon has some fancy numbers.. but give it a month.. 2 months.. and see how the real reviews and results come out. lets see what people can really do with these cameras.. lets see what system the real pro's get behind.

both nikon and canon have amazing cameras out there. you couldnt go wrong with either. its just a tool.. if you think nikon is a better choice, go for it.. get the camera and start shooting.. ultimately.. thats what its all about.. at the end of the day i could care less what brand is on my camera.. or on your camera.. show me what you can do!

 

[Christian_Stella]

So...

Look at the difference between the Nikon D700 and Nikon D800.

Now look at the difference between the Canon 5D2 and the Canon 5D3.

If Nikon can improve their camera as much as they did between 2008 and 2012, why can't Canon?

Clearly it's because Canon's 2008 camera wasn't as deficient as Nikon's.

Having actually used the 5d3 for over a week now, it definitely does not feel like some small upgrade, but if people insist, let's meet back here in 3 years and discuss how the d900 is a small leap.

 

[Ponte506]

Some awesome replies, thank you for taking your time. In regards to the 5d mk. III not being as revolutionary as the 5d2, I completely agree. There are a lot of competitors now that can match it, and I'm sure we'll receive something that incorporates more advanced features a year....two years...five years from now. BUT, I can take complete satisfaction in the fact that there are tried and true examples of what we can accomplish with the 5d2 and ESPECIALLY with the 5d3 in Hollywood and TV already. I somewhat feel like a lot of people are bummed that they're not getting "Inception" and "Saving Private Ryan" filmic quality as soon as they plug their CF card into their computer and export it right off the bat by getting one over on Hollywood with their $3,000 still camera. Not gonna happen.

 

[pdirestajr]

So...

Look at the difference between the Nikon D700 and Nikon D800.

Now look at the difference between the Canon 5D2 and the Canon 5D3.

If Nikon can improve their camera as much as they did between 2008 and 2012, why can't Canon?

Isn't the "Mark III" badge on the camera an indication that this is just an update of an existing camera, the "5D" and NOT a revolutionary new game changing camera?

It's JUST AN UPDATE!
NEW AF, improved FPS, latest processor, etc.

I don't understand why some people expected this camera to be anything different.

Now if it was a 2D or 3D, that would be a different story...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 5DII and 5D III cameras are basically still cameras with video capability. For a very large increase in price, video makers were hoping to see some really big improvements in the cameras video capability. There are improvements, for sure, but not as much as many would want. Certainly no 4K video at that price.

I do not do video, but I do think Canon is planning to produce a video DSLR with still capabilities that will have a lot more professional video maker capabilities at a mid level $8-$10K price. It will not be at the D300 level though

That is not to say that the 5D MK III is useless for video, just that it was expected to have more features, like full resoultion output thru the HDMI jack.

If I were lookiing for a upgrade from 5D MK II to a better video capable camera for pro level work, I'd wait and see what is announced at NAB, or later this year.

But, since I only do stills, I am putting mine to work.

 

[psolberg]

So...

Look at the difference between the Nikon D700 and Nikon D800.

Now look at the difference between the Canon 5D2 and the Canon 5D3.

If Nikon can improve their camera as much as they did between 2008 and 2012, why can't Canon?

Clearly it's because Canon's 2008 camera wasn't as deficient as Nikon's.

Having actually used the 5d3 for over a week now, it definitely does not feel like some small upgrade, but if people insist, let's meet back here in 3 years and discuss how the d900 is a small leap.

well, defficient, or different? Yes the D700 didn't do video, that bus came later. But it was VERY fast , even faster TODAY than the new 5DmkIII (D700 does 8fps at FULL frame with a grip) and it was a good 1 - 2 stops over high ISO performance over the 5DII thanks to its flagship D3 sensor and 100% pro level 51 point AF system, 3D focus tracking and even a 1000+ zone RGB metering sensor. This is all in 2008 mind you at a cost that is the same as today's camera. Deficient? I don't think so. So for the videographer it may have been obviously, but low light sports and actions photographers loved it and still do for where else can you do 8fps full frame for 2200 dollars with a pro level AF system and crazy high ISOs?

so I have to agree with the opinion that nikon had a much bigger leap to take and they took it. It seems canon was far more conservative. Then again nikon hasn't said the D800 replaces the D700 and it looks so different that they may have something in the wings, a D710 maybe? Surely times are going to be interesting this year.

 

[peederj]

The resolution is the only disappointing thing I think. I have no need for clean HDMI out if the cam can conveniently record 1000+ line 1080p without macroblocking, noise, moire, etc. (Rolling shutter I am not terribly worried about, don't do many whip pans).

You can see in 10x live view what sort of resolution the sensor can do. And you get none of it. And the cam can stream 90mbps ALL-I. They give stills shooters different resolutions of JPEG, but they do not give video people their choice of resolutions (ALL-I and IPB are very similar looking and may only yield slight benefits for high-motion and low-motion shots respectively, the steady-state resolution and look is essentially the same).

Canon break down and give us a superfine mode for video. IPB only I am fine with. Give us the potential of this sensor and this Digic5 which is way more than you are delivering now.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 5DII and 5D III cameras are basically still cameras with video capability. For a very large increase in price, video makers were hoping to see some really big improvements in the cameras video capability. There are improvements, for sure, but not as much as many would want. Certainly no 4K video at that price.

I do not do video, but I do think Canon is planning to produce a video DSLR with still capabilities that will have a lot more professional video maker capabilities at a mid level $8-$10K price. It will not be at the D300 level though

That is not to say that the 5D MK III is useless for video, just that it was expected to have more features, like full resoultion output thru the HDMI jack.

If I were lookiing for a upgrade from 5D MK II to a better video capable camera for pro level work, I'd wait and see what is announced at NAB, or later this year.

But, since I only do stills, I am putting mine to work.

i think people were surprised that after all of the 22MP 3x3 talk it ended up with more like 1280x720 levels of detail, that zebra striping and focus zoom while recording are missing, that they added all these new in cam audio features but apparently forgot to update the hissing internal audio amps even to D800-quality, where is the C300-like 2x2 cropped mode for true 1920x1080 sharpness if 3x3 won't allow for it? For 3.5 years it seems it should've had those basics. It does fix moire and aliasing at least and seems to do better at ISO3200+.

i haven't seen evidence myself yet, but some are claiming that somehow Nikon got sharper video out of the D800 than the 5D3 despite the 36MP

 

[Christian_Stella]

From what I've seen in samples, the d800 is clearly sharper, but with worse moire and aliasing than even the 5d2. Noise looks comparable to the 5d2 but the 5d3 smokes them both.

In the end it comes down to your choice of platform and your preference over resolved detail or less moire, less aliasing, and less noise. Neither is perfect, but neither is a slouch.

 

[tomscott]

I think its more expectations were not fulfilled 30% increase in price without 30% increase in features and quality.

It is an upgrade which was following an industry changing camera.

The people who complain are usually the ones you hear from the rest of the lucky people who got a 5D MKIII will be out shooting and enjoying it! and can probably use it... LOL!

but obviously there are teething problems in 3 months the small problems will be ironed out.

 

[unkbob]

The 5D3 is the best full frame camera for video in the world, I believe - unless you prefer the higher resolution / increased moire of the D800 (would depend on what you're shooting). But still, I was hoping for a fully resolved 1080p. Having looked at a 1DX video sample on youtube, I'm not sure if that's true 1080p either.

Shooting a wedding with the 5D3 tomorrow. Guess I'd better figure out how to use it

 

[CJRodgers]

From what I've seen in samples, the d800 is clearly sharper, but with worse moire and aliasing than even the 5d2. Noise looks comparable to the 5d2 but the 5d3 smokes them both.

In the end it comes down to your choice of platform and your preference over resolved detail or less moire, less aliasing, and less noise. Neither is perfect, but neither is a slouch.

Could you show me some examples of the d800 moire vs 5dmkii please? I have heard lots of mixed opinions, but most saying it isnt as bad as the 5dmkii. So any more information on this would be great thanks. Im thinking of getting the 5dmkii seeing as i cant afford any other full frame right now. Thanks

 

[psolberg]

From what I've seen in samples, the d800 is clearly sharper, but with worse moire and aliasing than even the 5d2. Noise looks comparable to the 5d2 but the 5d3 smokes them both.

In the end it comes down to your choice of platform and your preference over resolved detail or less moire, less aliasing, and less noise. Neither is perfect, but neither is a slouch.

to my eyes, the D800 does not fall victim to brick walls as easily as the 5DmkII, which totally destroy it, so they did try to improve it over the 5DmkII moire but it seems it was not a priority and they chose to go for more detail. There were filters for the 5DmkII to deal with moire which I'm sure will make its way to nikon D800 videographers. I'm REALLY on the fence because 1) I don't shoot far away brick walls and know how to avoid moire, 2) most of my video is in natural settings where the repeating patterns that cause moire are less of a concern whereas detail is prime.

Looking at phillip bloom's footage, he tries hard to argue that you can sharpen in post, but he was shooting nature and so I have to question his true level of satisfaction. It is clear that his clips would have not needed sharpening if the camera was true 1080, and that he'd have a much higher quality footage from true 1080 than from sharpened lower res footage.

Could you show me some examples of the d800 moire vs 5dmkii please? I have heard lots of mixed opinions, but most saying it isnt as bad as the 5dmkii. So any more information on this would be great thanks. Im thinking of getting the 5dmkii seeing as i cant afford any other full frame right now. Thanks

I have not seen side by side comparisons yet but I have seen plenty of horrible 5DII fotage over the year and IMO the D800 looks better in the moire department. That or it may just be perception because the footage is so much cleaner. I'm sure we'll see soon. Even if it was a the same level of awfulness as the 5DII, I think everybody knows how to work around that from the 5DII experience by now.

 

[mrmarks]

The latest problem found with the 5D3 is the IS noise coming from certain lens-5D3 combination. It may be the case that all these teething issues (soft focus, write error, dead pixel) can be fixed by a firmware/software upgrade but it seems that there could be some hardware issues as well. I have not seen as many issues during the 5D2 release (black dot) and it seems that Canon has dropped the ball in the case of 5D3. Nikon seem to manage their new release better. Anyway this is an excellent example of never to be an early adopter. I'm putting off my purchase of the 5D3 and hopefully all these software/hardware bugs will be resolved in 2-3 months time by Canon.

 

[CJRodgers]

From what I've seen in samples, the d800 is clearly sharper, but with worse moire and aliasing than even the 5d2. Noise looks comparable to the 5d2 but the 5d3 smokes them both.

In the end it comes down to your choice of platform and your preference over resolved detail or less moire, less aliasing, and less noise. Neither is perfect, but neither is a slouch.

to my eyes, the D800 does not fall victim to brick walls as easily as the 5DmkII, which totally destroy it, so they did try to improve it over the 5DmkII moire but it seems it was not a priority and they chose to go for more detail. There were filters for the 5DmkII to deal with moire which I'm sure will make its way to nikon D800 videographers. I'm REALLY on the fence because 1) I don't shoot far away brick walls and know how to avoid moire, 2) most of my video is in natural settings where the repeating patterns that cause moire are less of a concern whereas detail is prime.

Looking at phillip bloom's footage, he tries hard to argue that you can sharpen in post, but he was shooting nature and so I have to question his true level of satisfaction. It is clear that his clips would have not needed sharpening if the camera was true 1080, and that he'd have a much higher quality footage from true 1080 than from sharpened lower res footage.

Could you show me some examples of the d800 moire vs 5dmkii please? I have heard lots of mixed opinions, but most saying it isnt as bad as the 5dmkii. So any more information on this would be great thanks. Im thinking of getting the 5dmkii seeing as i cant afford any other full frame right now. Thanks

I have not seen side by side comparisons yet but I have seen plenty of horrible 5DII fotage over the year and IMO the D800 looks better in the moire department. That or it may just be perception because the footage is so much cleaner. I'm sure we'll see soon. Even if it was a the same level of awfulness as the 5DII, I think everybody knows how to work around that from the 5DII experience by now.

Is the d800 true hd? I read about b lines meaning it didnt need as fast mb/s spped, but i didnt properly understand it.

 

[stabmasterasron]

I think the only people complaining are video people. I think the stills crowd got most of what they wanted. Everything the 5dmkii lacked for stills, the 5dmkiii has, with the possible exception of a few people wanting much higher sensor resolution.

The biggest complaint about 5dmkii for stills was AF performance. It seems like Canon responded to that complaint with much force. Then they made the camera even more rugged and waterproof. For stills, I think it was a nice upgrade from the 5dmkii.