just bought a 5d mark III – was that a mistake ?

[Warren Eig]

Do you need 4K? If not, try downloading the MagicLantern 1.2.3 to shoot RAW 14bit. it is amazing.

If you need 4K that’s a different story. Remember, If you shoot 4K and the image is soft, it resolves around the resolution of 1080. Most people don’t realize this. You only get the true benefits of 4K when everything is perfect.

Warren Eig
O 310-470-0905

email: warren@babyboompictures.com
website: https://www.BabyBoomPictures.com

REEL: https://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/Reels.html

For Camera Accessories – Monitors and Batteries
website: https://www.EigRig.com

[Johnny Smith]

Hey Warren, long time no see.
I don’t need 4k, most of my stuff is 1920 x 1080.
If I’m doing stuff for the web is MagicLantern really a must ?
I only have 2 128GB 120MB/s 800x CF cards. I have a feeling I’ll need a lot more of these cards for raw.

[Warren Eig]

Johnny,

No you don’t need ML for the Web. But of course I liked to have the best picture possible because you never know if it will be repurposed. Yes you need the card speed and size but on the plus side it is 14bit RAW and you can set the white balance/color balance after you shoot because it is RAW.

But if it is really for the web and nothing else, h.264 is fine.

Warren Eig
O 310-470-0905

email: warren@babyboompictures.com
website: https://www.BabyBoomPictures.com

REEL: https://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/Reels.html

For Camera Accessories – Monitors and Batteries
website: https://www.EigRig.com

[Johnny Smith]

Thanks Warren. Wish I did my research first. Should have gotten the Nikon d810 instead. Oh well.

[Bill Bruner]

Hi Johnny – Even if you don’t need 4K, a lot of people are selling their $3000+ 5D Mark IIIs for the $1698 Panasonic GH4 and a $600 Canon EF to micro 4/3 speed booster. Here’s why:

– you can “downres” 4K to 1080p and get a much sharper picture – and you can stabilize, crop and pan in post to make it look like you have more than one camera

– you don’t need to buy a loupe or EVF – the camera has a built-in EVF

– the GH4 records at up to 1080/96p for in-camera slow motion – Canons are limited to 1080/30p (except for the $12,000 1D C)/

– you can use almost any lens with a mirrorless camera – to include the excellent Voigtlander f0.95 lenses and every Canon lens ever made (to include FD) – lens selection is much more limited with a Canon body

– you can rotate the LCD for high and low angles – and you can flip it forward so you can see yourself when you’re in front of the camera

– real video camera features such as autofocus, color bars, gamma curve adjustment, master pedestal and hours of continuous recording (no 30 minute limit)

Major Canon bloggers like Dave Dugdale from learningdslrvideo.com and Caleb Pike from dslrvideoshooter.com have ditched their 5D Mark IIIs for this camera and/or the full frame mirrorless Sony A7s, which costs a little more than the Panasonic at $2498.

Here is the review where Dave announces his switch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxGekOHEPuc

And here’s Caleb’s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ci6DYXbKrs

The Nikon 810 is not on the radar screen for most video shooters. It suffers from the same limitations as the 5D Mark III where video is concerned.

Hope this is helpful!

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

[Johnny Smith]

Thanks for this.
To be honest the GH4 is not for me- I shoot in low light often; stills are important. And lastly all the technical jumbo aside the mark III footage just looks more “cinematic” to me. All that sharpness of the GH4 reminds me of a point and shoot. Perhaps because the 35mm film telecined to 1920 x 1080 4:2:2 is somewhat soft and a lot more like the mark III footage than the GH4.

That said, the Sony A7s sounds very interesting. Going to start looking around at some reviews of it. My biggest reason for considering getting rid of the 5d is slow motion. Mark 3 can only do 60 fps at 720p so I would have to rely on Kronos or Twixter in post for slow motion. Sounds like the Sony A7s doesn’t have that limitation. Hope it’s well built like the Canon- never trusted the Sony brand.

[Johnny Smith]

UPDATE: 2 hours of research later- I’m keeping the Mark III. The A7s is an amazing camera BUT it produces more of a “video look” quality and feels “prosumer” compared to “cinematic” pro look of the mark3 footage. This was my original observation which was confirmed by several reviewers online. I might be slightly exaggerating but the “film” look is very important to me because I started shooting on 35mm and am still obsessed with that look.

[Rick Wise]

I wonder if that more “film” look in the Mark lll is due to its large chip. The consequence of that size is that you use much longer lenses for the same field of view. At a given distance and given f/stop, the longer the lens the more shallow the depth of field. While there are filmmakers (including Michael Mann) who love deep depth of field, most prefer to isolate the main subjects with shallow depth of field, throwing background and foreground out of focus.

It may also be that the A7 and GH4 do have more crisp details, which produces a more “video” look. Probably one can turn down detail to get a softer contour, but the lens issue remains.

Rick Wise
Cinematographer
MFA/BFA Lighting and Camera Instructor Academy of Art University
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com

[Jonathan Thomas]

Actually I have the Sony a7s. Yes it is sharp. You can create that film look in post. And control how soft you want it. This makes it a better option in low light situations.

[Johnny Smith]

From what I hear the A7s and the Mk3 are both full sensor cameras so the sensors are about the same size. I believe the A7s is a better camera but there are many cons for me- like I would need 2 adapters instead of one to use my Hasselblad distagon lenses with it, it feels a bit more like a “toy” with its tiny buttons and small batteries than the mk3 and I still believe there’s something out there other than sensor size and lack of sharpness that’s making A7s look more like video. Also I’ve heard that the Mark IV is coming out next year that’s going to change the game so I don’t want to unlearn and relearn and re-accessorize next year. I’m so used to my old Mark II already.

FYI I’m planning on skipping Magic Lantern ( heard the workflow is a pain in the ass ) so I’ve heard that MK3 ALL-I codec > than Sony’s codec ( I don’t use external recorders and don’t want to deal with 4k ). The only reason one might be able to still convince me to trade for an A7s is slow motion. I’ll never be shooting at ISO 5 million or whatever because I know how to use lighting. I finish my projects for the web so 720p is still fine. So planning on shooting 60 fps on the mark III at 720, then converting the footage to 30 fps in post and applying Kronos or Twixtor. I believe I’ll get close to the slow motion quality of the A7s ( where you can overcrank on set and do it the right way ). Correct me if I’m wrong.