Leaderboard

This guy shoots everything he does with a Rebel T2i and Sigma 30mm, all handheld: I need to go make a film ...

At the end of the day both the 5D3 and the GH4 represent the best of what is an incredibly privileged time for tiny budget filmmakers. For money that almost any working person could save within a year or so, you can buy a camera that offers a genuinely superb cinematic image. It's insane. 5D RAW is a pain in the neck to shoot with and the GH4 has some image limitations compared to larger sensor cameras - but which one is "best' is a completely moot point. It just comes down to your specific needs and tastes. Employed correctly, each will deliver images that 10 years ago you would have to have been either stupendously rich or a successful filmmaker to even get close to. Now almost anyone can create genuinely stunning cinematic images. It seems almost ungracious to argue over the two cameras - like spoiled children wanting each others toys. We're all brothers here - "soldiers of cinema" as Werner Herzog puts it. It makes sense to take some time to decide which camera one likes best, but no one is going to be right or wrong. No need to argue. But the 5D is better in low light. ;)

Dilemma of the century. Do you take the advantages of raw or 4K? Do you take the full frame sensor or the crop? Do you take the DSLR form factor or the advantages for video of mirrorless? This is something I've been really trying to draw a conclusion on in recent weeks for my own sanity! Read the full article here

I've always been of the opinion that hd, then 4k, then 8k etc have been quantifiable numbers which happen to be marketing friendly and that it didn't really matter. I'm not getting a gh4 since I want full frame, but this test really does show how really great that extra resolution is. If you want it lower res, mis focus slightly or whack a gaussian blur of 2pixels over the image and you have good old 1080p. the issue is that a lot of users won't consider or implement all of the factors that make up a true cinema experience and the added resolution will only serve to multiply the obviousness of the failings and the pointlessness of the users decision to shoot 4k (who will likely be a consumer under the impression they are a professional, rather than a professional moving with the current trend). It'll be when Andrew does a creative piece with the camera and his cookes or someone like Hugo Goudsward takes the camera and makes it work for him that we'll see the jump where the resolution really takes it up a notch. just to clarify I completely disregarded the term 4k within a consumer camera, and the term gh4 (due to my dislike of anything smaller than full frame:)- until this test. 8 months ago the 5d3 raw hack turned everything on its head and now there is the little gh4 which doesnt need 10gb/min worth of cards to shoot with it. superb IMO

lenses - 'cos all these cameras are useless without them....

i want to vote for both lenses and grading.... ^_^ but lenses is no 1, due to the lens lust

kendy ..pure talent! he has a page where he sells his canon picture style and how to grade it here: http://www.kendyty.com/#!stills/ck0q

If I had to choose between both I would go with the Sony because it's better in image quality and video quality, and the autofocus looks pretty damn good.

Do this: Mount the camera on a heavy tripod. Tighten all screws. Focus a brick wall or st. like that on infinity. Hit record. Press gently but firmly against the Sigma, in different directions. Then watch the clip on the monitor. I bet the oof-areas will move around the frame. There are two bayonet connectors in this construction, and they don't make a solid unit, tolerances add. Ever owned a Letus 35mm adapter? Same song. Finding backfocus was crucial. The thing was 'milled from one massive aluminum block', and they always had to be supported with rails. BTW: Where do you mount your tripod? It must be the Metabones' connector. And handheld: You have to carry the weight mainly by holding the Sigma, not the Pocket. It's not so much because the mount might break, but the heavier part will bow. EDIT: An elegant way to stabilize the structure, instead of rails, could be by using a tripod plate. This was my first makeshift 'grip' for the Pocket: You could press a piece of rubber or so between the ground plate and the non-moving ring (where I have my thumb in the picture). One can at the same time 'fix' the position and hold the camera on the lens with both hands:

Frankly, considering it's shot in AVCHD the chroma work is more than acceptable, I'd even say great... hard to get anything more "solid" with such compression. Two thumbs up for those skin tones, and the overall lighting is pleasant, too. Having said that, the recipe was fuel for my nightmares. Non-stick spray? Basil and oregano? The pretty lady and the nice lighting made it worthwhile, but I hope nobody follows her advice...

The epic is the reason why a lot of people in the video world think 4K is just a marketing thing. It's actually great that one year after ML RAW we are comparing compressed video to it, something that was completly out of question just a few month ago. The most videoish thing is sharpening slighly out of focus areas, or footage shot above f4-5.6 which on m43 is already totally into diffraction area, there is nothing more ugly than sharpened diffraction.

My point exactly.

Jesus...what's with this word Filmic.

But it is not filmic enough!

I think even in 4 years the 5D still shines as an amazing stills camera, build quality and full frame retains more value - even though in 4 years it might be a bit outdated in the video realm. On the other hand, GH4 would probably be much cheaper in 4 years. I think anyone who feels so strongly that either camera smashes the other is blinded by being too emotionally involved. My eyes don't see such a dramatic difference, I think it boils down to being a matter of preference . I'd prefer go full frame - but if I had a collection of m43 lenses I'd be delighted with the GH4.

I downloaded Luke's raw files for that test. It was a good test but not a definitive final one as I am sure he will be first to admit. I am sure he has more planned. The stuff I found...First the GH4 has digital sharpening applied because it is set to 0 in-camera, the middle of the sharpness scale rather than -5 and that separates it from the Epic and 5D because they both have no sharpening applied in post on the raw data. None of that changes Luke's conclusion that the Epic is softer though, he's right. It is. The GH4 seems a little overexposed in the test which lends a harsher look to highlights in the image, like glinting specular highlights on the roof and the gradation in the sky suffers a bit because of it. The 5D Mark III looks overexposed to me and boosted in post to ISO 800 to match the native ISO on another camera. It should have been shot at ISO 200 with no exposure boost in post necessary on the raw file. Exposure to the right may have helped it. The Epic looks filmic to me, but I am surprised how little extra detail it is giving compared to upscaled 1080p to 4K from the 5D Mark III!

Wow, this thread is fired up. I really think the GH4 looks good, maybe surprisingly so, but then so does the GH3. Both cameras can hang with the 5D3R raw if you put them in the right setting and use them in the right way. I see the GH4 as a nice improvement over the last generation, but it's lack of raw support means it's not for me.

14-bit colour is nicer than 8-bit colour raw looks nicer than 4:2:0 5D3 highlight rolloff is smoother, there's more dynamic range. It's great in low light. however 5D3 raw requires huge fast memory cards that are expensive, lots of fast hard-disk space that's very expensive 5D3 raw requires long-winded workflow with various awkward workarounds as it's not Red-style compressed raw add to that the GH4s 4K and GH4 is a much more sensible choice for most shooters out there. If final image quality at all costs is what's needed, the 5D3 raw is beautiful... for student film, for example, or personal project. Place any real-world restrictions on it and it's harder to get away with when all's said and done. I've seen some amazing 5D3 raw films, but I think far more work will actually be done with GH4. It's an indie film-maker's dream!

andy, I bought the RJ FD to m4/3 adapter almost 2 months ago ... remember ? ;-)

Guys, would you buy this over the Canon 70D? I'm interested in stills IQ more than in video and low-light focusing is pretty important to me...but I can't make my mind up!!!! 179 focus points vs 19 cross-type, touch screen vs great viewfinder, etc... I've asked everywhere, but no one tells me what to do: for what I'm needing (great stills, good indoor focusing), what shall I pick? The Sony A6000 or the Canon 70D ? Please help! :wacko: Thank you!

I watched this, and clearly the 5d3 walked circles around the "quarter size" sensor. I see a dramatic difference at ISO 6400 - do you not? Might also be "fair" to not use the speed booster as many people getting a GH4 won't be using one. Just sayin'. Yes, you can use fast glass and special adapters to get the micro four thirds sensor to look good at ISO 1600-3200 - but let's see some tests straight out of the camera with each 24-70 equivalent @ F/2.8. The 5d3 will crush the gh4 in low light, period. You have 4x the sensor size - how can you expect anything else? It's physics...

Yep. Also keep in mind he graded this in Resolve; I've used Resolve and Adobe After effects with the ACR. The latter does a much better job IMO with the raw dng files. Then once you factor in how much better the 5d3 is for shooting sports with the 61 pt AI Servo AF, and also the fact there's no speed booster for EF glass - it's a no brainer if you already have the 5d3 + EF lenses. If you're starting with nothing, it's not as easy of a choice. But I like wide and full frame, so make mine Canon for now....

I tried a more sigificant test, on a tripod, with moderate light conditions. You can download the three DNGs here. First is the Metabones with the aperture wide open, exposure controlled with zebra and ETTR: The three points of interest enlarged: Hard to tell, if indeed the left edge is subtly out of focus, one needed a giant test chart ;-) But according to the mark on the Sigma, it was indeed infinity: In comparison roughly the same framing (by zooming out) with the Novoflex, first wide open: ... and stopped down about one-third (meaning approx. 2-3 stops?): All these images may not look pleasing, the monitor isn't properly calibrated. Also, from the low resolution (I mean the 1920 sized DNGs) it's hard to nail down if there are any differences in detail, but spontaneously the Novoflex looks clearer, perhaps less color fringing. It's no fun to watch a panorama on the muddy, peaking-contaminated display of the Pocket. Sigh, this is all such a hassle ...

Nope. I hear these "video" comments when discussing cameras so often and they're really bizarrely off base. Please show me a camcorder that shoots your home videos at that resolution. Theres nothing "home video" about the GH4. The type of camcorder home videos you're thinking of have less resolution, more in focus, blown out highlights. Not remotely similar. The extra resolution is amazing. Its not a bad thing, not a video thing. You can always tone down detail through a whole array of techniques, however you cannot add resolution where there wasn't any. Where you see people using stock lenses on autofocus, without tripods or steadicams and without careful compositions - that is the shaky ugly home video you're seeing. It has nothing to do with the GH4 at all. The tests to show off resolution show what is possible, they're not meant to be film-like. If you have an aerial shot of dolphins in a clear ocean you want that resolution. If you need to greenscreen, you need that resolution. Too much resolution? You simply soften in post. Its that simple, resolution is awesome and the Gh4 is amazing. The reason a focus on people hasn't been used in these tests is because character shots are normally shot wide open, which doesn't get to emphasize the resolution as well as bricks, trees and scenery does. Is the GH4 better than the 5D with raw? They're really close. Each have pro's and cons according to your workflow and depend perhaps on which lenses you own. Your 5DMK3 is a powerhouse. Seriously, time to put that bad boy to work. Have you tried ML raw yet? I know you mentioned before that you were hesitant to try it, but its worthwhile knowing if you can handle the extra hassle for the extra DR. At the end of the day editing is a huge part as well. The biggest advantage the 5D has over the GH4 is full frame, thats about it... but to me thats a big one. I direct commercials and do documentary work. If I was to be given a gift of a choice between the 5D and the GH4 - It would be a tough decision. I travel a lot, so a compact kit is important to me... but so is full frame, low light and top end stills. Decisions, decisions. I don't need a new camera immediately so I might wait for the A7s to decide. But if I owned a 5D, I wouldn't be pondering whether I made a good purchase or not. You on the other hand, have mentioned that you're a school teacher and you've just bought the 5D in order to start doing documentary projects and are still new to both cameras and film. Honestly, you need to forget this obsession about which camera to get and the whole ML raw vs GH4 thing. Its really misdirected, as you have more than enough firepower to win an oscar. Rather buy some interesting lenses, a steadicam, follow focus, anamorphics... stuff like that to play around with. And then upload work for people to critique. Please be careful not to get too carried away at these comparisons at the cost of going out and filming.

I'm confused at the desire for the sharpest image...i think a balance needs to be struck...when watch cinema films if I was watching the level of sharpness most of the gh4 videos that have been posted exhibit I would feel like i was watching a home movie...however the reason ML Raw has been a smash is it takes an almost unusable level of sharpness in the h.264 codec of the 5d3 and adds enough sharpness to match the red that neumann posted...we should look at it as what is optimal vs. "the sharpest" I think a comparison showing human subjects is much more useful than static shots, I never understood that. We shoot people much more than buildings and trees. I think the 5d3 raw would be much more appealing to the masses (shooters and viewers) than gh4 image (camcorder sharp).

Shoot static on an old TV set.

The dynamic range just gets me on the GH4. I preferred the 5d in every shot. It jumps out at me in highlights mostly.

Are you referring specifically to cinema lenses, generally old lenses or just stating that there are some very sharp old lenses? I agree with the logic that less contrasty is not less sharp but everyone seems to agree that for example many canon FD's are a little soft and Leica M's often have that glow... with every lens having a "personality". It seems to me that most of the "personality" in older lenses on digital bodies is ultimately some sort of reduction of that digital sharpness in some way or another. What do you think?

It's a variable bitrate codec and it probably leaves 20Mbit in reserve for a particularly challenging few frames to avoid corruption.   Try a sudden whip pan of a forest of trees at F5.6 or a sudden flare up of the entire frame whilst shooting something with tons of detail in it, that will really push the codec to the limit!

Anamorphics will surely shine on the GH4. Maybe more so than any other camera I'd assume. The crop factor probably works in its favor. On a side note, showed a photographer / filmmaker friend of mine your site to hold off on buying the BMCC, as your reviews added some new insight he wasn't aware of. As a Nikon owner he hadn't heard of the ML hack (or the Nikon hack for that matter) but was convinced that the name EOSHD made you particularly biased to Canon. I had to run him through quite a few of your various older posts until he was convinced that the site name was entirely incidental and that this is all 100% unbiased pixel peeping and lens porn.

Obviously I meant you made no mention in the article this thread is attached to - the one that compares the image of the 2 cameras overall. The 5D is superior in low light. I saw your low light comparison - the 5D has very noticeably superior colour, and it has the edge in DR. I have a feeling the 5D will lend itself to bringing up the shadows a lot more too. There are very large areas of crushed blacks in your shots - especially the GH4. What about when you want to see into the shadows?

  A low contrast look is not superior. You can make the GH4 and 5D raw look as flat as a pancake if you want to. Question is what is the benefit? If your monitor had a low contrast look you'd return it to the shop! I don't know why people think a flat look is superior. For grading raw has no look. It isn't flat. It is raw data straight off the sensor that describes colours, whites and blacks. Why compress all that into the mids and get grey? I blame stuff like CineStyle for the confusion.

Funny how *sharpness* elicits oohs and aahs from certain people who then put 40 or 50 year old (sometimes uncoated) lenses on these cameras. Nobody wants to see ultra sharp footage of people's faces, especially when the skin tones are produced by a GH series camera.

Don't think that has to do with the card. More likely the subjects you are filming. Try something with a lot of small details or high iso. I have one of those new panasonic 16GB cards, when i get my GH4 ill compare it to some other older cards regarding bitrate.

Found a video with amazing autofocus, really useful in documentary shoot, for example.

In a couple of days we'll know for sure, but for now rumors point to a competitive price: http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sony-a7s-priced-at-1800 If it's in the ballpark of that amount, or simply under 2000$, the GH4 is going to have some nice competition... and it would seem logical.

I think the A6000 is more than perfect for what I will use it for,1 to 2 minute properly lit scenes. I personally haven't seen the codec break down to a unusable degree yet,mainly because I keep in mind the weak areas of the camera. I have a GH2 and I enjoy the images out the A6000 just as much,it's not that it resolves better but its images have a certain texture and feel to them. At this point I'm just trying to figure out the best combination of settings to get a desired result. On this specific footage I shot for almost 2 hours nonstop,1 to 2 minute clips every couple of seconds with no overheating. I like this camera a lot. Random photos taken during photo shoot..35mm 1.8 OSS.

  I agree. You are now upgraded to mod status sir  :)   Now then... if all the mods fall out... who will mod the mods? ;)