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

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Yes, Canon is going to have "C" series bodies for Cinema use and to differentiate cameras intended primarily for video use from those that are primarily for stills. C300 is only the first. They did not startup that expensive video support center in Hollywood for just one body and a couple of lenses.

 

[peederj]

The biggest complaint about 5dmkii for stills was AF performance. It seems like Canon responded to that complaint with much force.

Except for, oh, AF at f/8.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

http://gizmodo.com/5897098/d800-vs-5d-mark-iii-which-shoots-better-video/

Yeah, on second thought the D800 is sharper, but, as you say it has worse aliasing and MUCH worse color moire, wow, that city scape's white lights are all shades of the rainbow ;D and the high ISO looks more of a mess on the D800. Plus, the sharpness isn't THAT much better, it's not like 300/GH2 full-on 1920x1080-looking and a nicely sharpened up 5D3 might not be far behind the D800 at all although definitely still far behind true 1920x1080 detail.

I think you have to give the video to the 5D3 over the D800. I think they could have blown it out of the water had they not watered it down to save the new cinema line (which I think is a dumb, dumb move, their revolution was in the DSLR price-class and they could it taken it to the world).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

well the landscape stills crowd are not happy, the new cam does not one thing for them, doesn't have more MP and doesn't have the tiniest little increase in dynamic range while Nikon's non-exmor sensors went up by over a stop for dynamic range and their exmor stuff is just nuts with like nearing 3 stops better dynamic range than the 5D3

the AF and increased speed are very nice for all the stuff that uses that though

I think if they had even just increased dynamic range 1.3 stops and gotten true 1920x1080 people would be raving and if they had gone 30MP, on top (all other specs the same), then wow. But same ISO100-400 performance, still 1280x720p detail for video without zebra stripes or zoom in while recording for focus, same MP and $800 more got some complaining going.

they surely should have had the 5D3 also do a crop mode 2x2 blocking like the C300 delivering trye 1920x1080 along with the soft 3x3 blocked FF 1280-720p-ish looking video.

foolish to protect the C300 so much

 

[Christian_Stella]

In response to examples of the d800's moire, Gizmodo's side by side tests of the d800 and 5d3 showed an incredible amount of moire in the daytime shot of a skyline. The camera is panning to the right and as it gets to the right there is a building that is being absolutely devastated by moire. I found this a pretty telling thing because the building hardly even looked like something that should have caused moire in the first place. It certainly wasn't a brick wall of fine details is what I'm saying.

In all honesty though, aliasing is my biggest concern. In the entire feature film I shot on the 5d2, only 2 shots display any moire (using only sharp Zeiss wide angles and a singh-ray variable ND)... But nearly all shots display some amount of aliasing. This is what was great about Phillip Bloom's review of the 5d3, while the nature wasn't the best example for moire, it's a wonderful example to show aliasing. It is practically non-existent on the 5d3. While the d800 is out resolving the 5d3, the aliasing does not look promising. Though maybe the samples have in-camera sharpening applied.

Aliasing (and moire when it exists) is the final thing affecting the filmic look of DSLR footage. You can shoot 24fps with almost the correct shutter speed of 48, and you can apply a beautiful filmic color correction in post, but nothing will make your footage look like true film if jagged digital edges are present.

You can definitely argue that resolution is another thing holding back a real film look, but I don't think the d800 is the answer there... Maybe once a third-party anti-aliasing filter is tested. Personally, because of my Canon glass, I'd probably rent a C300 for a higher budget shoot. For something with the sub 10k budget of my last film, I'm sticking with my 5d3.

Take everything I say with a grain of salt though, as I am a photographer first and the 5d3 is my perfect camera for photography. I do believe though that that is something that can set you apart. I approach cinema no different than my regular photography and it can make for something more unique than the traditional master, closeup, closeup of normal shoots. We filmed about 1/4 of our movie The Battery in static single shots with no coverage, but it fit the lonely feeling we were going for. I know I can't compete with the big boys in cinematography, so I want to do something different.

 

[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.

well the landscape stills crowd are not happy, the new cam does not one thing for them, doesn't have more MP and doesn't have the tiniest little increase in dynamic range while Nikon's non-exmor sensors went up by over a stop for dynamic range and their exmor stuff is just nuts with like nearing 3 stops better dynamic range than the 5D3

the AF and increased speed are very nice for all the stuff that uses that though

I think if they had even just increased dynamic range 1.3 stops and gotten true 1920x1080 people would be raving and if they had gone 30MP, on top (all other specs the same), then wow. But same ISO100-400 performance, still 1280x720p detail for video without zebra stripes or zoom in while recording for focus, same MP and $800 more got some complaining going.

they surely should have had the 5D3 also do a crop mode 2x2 blocking like the C300 delivering trye 1920x1080 along with the soft 3x3 blocked FF 1280-720p-ish looking video.

foolish to protect the C300 so much

Yes, I know the landscapers are not happy, that is why I mentioned the MP issue. The only thing that can help landscapers is MP and dynamic range - which the 5diii did not do much about. But for wedding photogs, event photogs, pj's, I think this camera was what they had been wanting. Killer AF (except f8), ruggedness, speed, weatherproofing. Yes, it does seem that Canon sacrificed MP for speed, but many will find that a good tradeoff.

 

[Christian_Stella]

Yes, I know the landscapers are not happy, that is why I mentioned the MP issue. The only thing that can help landscapers is MP and dynamic range - which the 5diii did not do much about. But for wedding photogs, event photogs, pj's, I think this camera was what they had been wanting. Killer AF (except f8), ruggedness, speed, weatherproofing. Yes, it does seem that Canon sacrificed MP for speed, but many will find that a good tradeoff.

Canon knows where their bread and butter is. Landscape photographers must be an almost nonexistent fraction of the paid professionals looking into this level of camera. I think as more and more video people start moving up to the new wave of dedicated video cams Canon is making sure they've focused on what has always been the core buyers of the 5d line... Wedding and event photographers. The 5d3 is a camera that can survive 3 1/2 more years of intense video competition because of wedding and event photographers. No matter what video functions they should have added, they would be out of date in months in this post 5d2 world of video cams.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

In response to examples of the d800's moire, Gizmodo's side by side tests of the d800 and 5d3 showed an incredible amount of moire in the daytime shot of a skyline. The camera is panning to the right and as it gets to the right there is a building that is being absolutely devastated by moire. I found this a pretty telling thing because the building hardly even looked like something that should have caused moire in the first place. It certainly wasn't a brick wall of fine details is what I'm saying.

In all honesty though, aliasing is my biggest concern. In the entire feature film I shot on the 5d2, only 2 shots display any moire (using only sharp Zeiss wide angles and a singh-ray variable ND)... But nearly all shots display some amount of aliasing. This is what was great about Phillip Bloom's review of the 5d3, while the nature wasn't the best example for moire, it's a wonderful example to show aliasing. It is practically non-existent on the 5d3. While the d800 is out resolving the 5d3, the aliasing does not look promising. Though maybe the samples have in-camera sharpening applied.

Aliasing (and moire when it exists) is the final thing affecting the filmic look of DSLR footage. You can shoot 24fps with almost the correct shutter speed of 48, and you can apply a beautiful filmic color correction in post, but nothing will make your footage look like true film if jagged digital edges are present.

You can definitely argue that resolution is another thing holding back a real film look, but I don't think the d800 is the answer there... Maybe once a third-party anti-aliasing filter is tested. Personally, because of my Canon glass, I'd probably rent a C300 for a higher budget shoot. For something with the sub 10k budget of my last film, I'm sticking with my 5d3.

Take everything I say with a grain of salt though, as I am a photographer first and the 5d3 is my perfect camera for photography. I do believe though that that is something that can set you apart. I approach cinema no different than my regular photography and it can make for something more unique than the traditional master, closeup, closeup of normal shoots. We filmed about 1/4 of our movie The Battery in static single shots with no coverage, but it fit the lonely feeling we were going for. I know I can't compete with the big boys in cinematography, so I want to do something different.

from what I see on samples all over:

yeah, sadly I don't think the D800 is the answer (after sharpening the 5D3 the D800 isn't even THAT much sharper unlike some of the others and the aliasing and all look a mess)

the GH2 gets you the proper resolution although it does seem a bit jaggy and digital looking to me so it's not a filmic 1920x1080, although it is a real 1920x1080, but yeah a bit of a harsh, digital look for sure, maybe the GH3 will be it

the C300 and some other big boys get the 1920x1080 plus filmic look

the 5D3 is filmic in terms of aliasing and moire and stair-steps but doesn't really quite have the resolution and the NR and compression can seem kind of digital-looking at times, even the GH2 can be tighter 'grained', but overall, I'd take it over the other APS-C through FF-sized DSLRs so far, not as nasty with aliasing and moire as the previous ones or the current D4/D800 options.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

well the landscape stills crowd are not happy, the new cam does not one thing for them, doesn't have more MP and doesn't have the tiniest little increase in dynamic range while Nikon's non-exmor sensors went up by over a stop for dynamic range and their exmor stuff is just nuts with like nearing 3 stops better dynamic range than the 5D3

the AF and increased speed are very nice for all the stuff that uses that though

I think if they had even just increased dynamic range 1.3 stops and gotten true 1920x1080 people would be raving and if they had gone 30MP, on top (all other specs the same), then wow. But same ISO100-400 performance, still 1280x720p detail for video without zebra stripes or zoom in while recording for focus, same MP and $800 more got some complaining going.

they surely should have had the 5D3 also do a crop mode 2x2 blocking like the C300 delivering trye 1920x1080 along with the soft 3x3 blocked FF 1280-720p-ish looking video.

foolish to protect the C300 so much

Yes, I know the landscapers are not happy, that is why I mentioned the MP issue. The only thing that can help landscapers is MP and dynamic range - which the 5diii did not do much about. But for wedding photogs, event photogs, pj's, I think this camera was what they had been wanting. Killer AF (except f8), ruggedness, speed, weatherproofing. Yes, it does seem that Canon sacrificed MP for speed, but many will find that a good tradeoff.

yeah it's great improvement for the other stuff, hitting 6fps is big that's the absolute minimum that can start working a bit for action so taht is big and the AF sounds like a phenomenal step up, it is a shame they didn't at least increase the dynamic range even if they kept MP same for speed's sake. Had they kept MP the sam ebut at least increased dynamic range even many landscape shooters may have been reasonably happy and mixed shooters thrilled (well other than the wildlife people, I know my 7D gets me more reach than my 5D2, but if it did everything else, then whatever for now, can't every last thing at once)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Yes, I know the landscapers are not happy, that is why I mentioned the MP issue. The only thing that can help landscapers is MP and dynamic range - which the 5diii did not do much about. But for wedding photogs, event photogs, pj's, I think this camera was what they had been wanting. Killer AF (except f8), ruggedness, speed, weatherproofing. Yes, it does seem that Canon sacrificed MP for speed, but many will find that a good tradeoff.

Canon knows where their bread and butter is. Landscape photographers must be an almost nonexistent fraction of the paid professionals looking into this level of camera. I think as more and more video people start moving up to the new wave of dedicated video cams Canon is making sure they've focused on what has always been the core buyers of the 5d line... Wedding and event photographers. The 5d3 is a camera that can survive 3 1/2 more years of intense video competition because of wedding and event photographers. No matter what video functions they should have added, they would be out of date in months in this post 5d2 world of video cams.

yeah but tons of amateurs buy these too and even for pros, even if landscapes is not where the money comes from, you can't deny that landscape-type shots are some of the most often taken types of shots overall and a bit extra dynamic range certainly wouldn't hurt wedding guys either, so i can buy the keeping the MP the same, but the DR is a real shame (if the 1DX has better DR then Canon really messed up big time IMO, focusing on getting DR into the wrong cam and getting too greedy for profit margins on the 5D3, which are rumored to be very high,OTOH if the 1DX has the same DR then Canon seems to be stuck, stuck without exmor patents, too stubborn to buy others, too much needing to still earn money from their old fabs, or something and they simply couldn't get there now even if maybe they had tried)

 

[Jedifarce]

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.

Let's keep in mind Shane Hurlbut when not using the helmet cams for Act of Valor, was employing $100K glass for his cinematic shots and in order to eliminate the noise and compression problems from the video in post production, had CinnaFilm's use Dark Energy to clean it up which probably wasn't cheap. Nobody outside of the film industry can afford these options.

 

[Jedifarce]

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.

What exactly do you base this garbage on? Paramount Pictures recently released the film 'Like Crazy' on blu-ray last month, it won the Sundance filim festival and was shot on the 7D. I believe you're confusing budget with ability. If you're able to create a film on a cheaper budget with cheaper equipment, it doesn't matter.

The fact you can't comprehend this is probably why you're here spouting nonsense while there are others actually out there making independent films.

 

[psolberg]

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.

What exactly do you base this garbage on? Paramount Pictures recently released the film 'Like Crazy' on blu-ray last month, it won the Sundance filim festival and was shot on the 7D. I believe you're confusing budget with ability. If you're able to create a film on a cheaper budget with cheaper equipment, it doesn't matter.

The fact you can't comprehend this is probably why you're here spouting nonsense while there are others actually out there making independent films.

no confusion. simply stating the facts. dslrs aren't the end all and be all of film just because they have been used in the past. They are simply being displaced by dedicated gear with offers the benefits of interchangleable optics and don't have to be crippled by worthless photographic form factors, and useless hardware like phisical shutters and mirror boxes. As such, they are destined to return to their true purpose of taking stills as time goes on. This has nothing to do with being an independant film maker or not. It is a matter of practicality and quite soon afordability. As pricess keep falling down (look at the FS700 which is alleged to shoot 4K for just $8K) it you'll get better quality and prices from dedicated video gear, with all the benefits of a lens system. It is inevitable. Like it or not, it is the future.

 

[Axilrod]

No I'm not disappointed at all, I'll finally be able to have the main camera look as good as cam 2 and 3. Usually I have a 16-35L or 14L II on a 5DII as the static cam, a 7D with 35L or 50L on a rig, and another 5DII on a fluid head with the 85L or 135L. We shoot in really random places and generally use available light, so usually the static cam suffers a bit because it's maxed out at f/2.8 while the others are shooting at f/2 with no problems. So I'd find myself cranking the 5DII with wide lens up to 1600 (which is my limit for pro work) while the other cams were usually at 320-640. Now I know I can do 1600 or even 3200 on the main cam and not have to worry about it not looking as good as the other 2.

The camera is awesome, aside from the video improvements the stills side is just incredible, I feel like I can't miss a shot. However, I've been saying for months that the 5DIII would only have improved video in an effort to not eat into the Cinema DSLR sales. I have a feeling we have a hell of a video camera coming our way and I can't wait to see what it can do.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

However, I've been saying for months that the 5DIII would only have improved video in an effort to not eat into the Cinema DSLR sales.

I still think that was a mistake. It's much harder for them to compete at the Cinema level or maybe more like it's harder for them to really stand out there as something remarkable even if they can compete there. But a full out effort on the 5D3, THAT would've kept them on the top of the raves heap and the 5D3 would've flown off the shelves maybe even faster than the 5D2. Instead you have people eyeing new Sonys at the somewhat higher end and giving the 5D3 (for video) meh reviews. They had a revolution, a gold mine, but I wonder if that is now over.

(if it truly was not technically possible to get a sharp, actual 1920x1080 out of then it is not a mistake though of course, but just a fact of life, it seems hard to believe that at least a cropped 2x2 sampling like the C300 does couldn't have delivered 1920x1080 on the 5D3 and the mode would have be useful at times even regardless, the other makers all see the point in cropped video modes, only Canon holds back as Canon is so in love with doing.)

Had they added a true-res 1920x1080 1.6x cropped 2x2 block mode, zebra stripes and focus check zooming while recording I bet they would've have all the video bloggers going nuts and raving like mad about it. Instead all I saw were rants, although some of them have no tempered to meh or not bad at all, but I still don't see the sort of raves they could've had.