Finally selling my 5D Mark III...what next?

[syrcular]

Hi all,

I realize this subject has been discussed in different forms, at various times on this forum, but I thought I'd get a fresh perspective in 2016 on how everyone feels as a good solid alternative to the 5D Mark III, specifically for video.
Originally I bought the 5D, so that I could have a solid photography and video camera.  But recently I switched camera systems, to the Fuji for all my stills work, so right now, I've been using the 5D more or less for video.  However I'm growing tired of seeing the soft footage, extremely shallow depth of field, making it harder to pull focus, and lack of dynamic range, especially when playing around with such cameras as the Sony A7S II and the Blackmagic Cameras.

Professionally I work in post production and work with a lot of Arri Alexa footage, so I'm used to working with a very filmic look.  So astetically I strive to shoot footage of similar characteristics.  Outside of working in post I like to shoot short films, music videos and mostly narrative works.  I feel like I can do better in this day and age than the long in the tooth 5D.  Here are some features I'm looking to have in a new camera....

1.  Super 35 (APS-C size) sensor as I find it easier to work with this sensor size since it matches with most cinema camera formats and looks the most cinematic to me, as well as easier to work with especially in the area of focusing.
2.  Capability of recording audio internally through a mic input or mic inputs

3.  Focus Peaking and other helpful metering or scope/grams on the rear display

4.  Clean output for external monitors or recorders

5.  4K recording internally

6.  1080p60 for slow motion

7.  Log profiles (like S-log, Log-C, V-Log, etc.)

8.  Compact enough to hold in my hand and walk around with no rig, or have the necessary and available accessories to rig it up with shoulder, rods, etc.

9.  Battery life that lasts more than 30 minutes.

So these are the fundamentals I've been looking for in 1 camera to shoot narrative video on.  Budget wise I'm trying to keep under $3000.

So far I've seen that the contenders are, the Canon C100 or Mark II (slightly above my budget), Sony A7S II, The Blackmagic fleet of cameras, The Sony A6300, and the Panasonic GH4/G7.  I see that all of them hit various points on my list, but have there fair share of issues whether it be lack of certain features or reliability concerns.

Blackmagic - Right off the bat I have to say working with the BM cameras in the past, I feel they come to the closest in looking Alexa like, especially when in Log mode, but as we all know those cameras seem to have a fair share of issues that follow.  So I'm very hesitant to bring a camera like that into a critical shoot situation

Canon - I've worked with the C100, C300 and C300 MkII.  I would love to own a C300 mkII, but it's way out of my price range, so I have to snap back to reality and look at the C100, however I have to say that the image quality on these C series cameras are amazing, but I feel really weird about buying a camera of this price range that doesn't have 4K capabilities.  Seems a but expensive, for a strictly HD cam.

Sony - I rented a Sony A7S II for a weekend and loved the image it produced but felt like I was teetering on the edge of issues.  Battery life was horrible on it, grading the sony footage was not the easiest at all especially with Slog 3 footage.  Ergonomics were a bit weird.  And I got varying degrees of reliability with focus using the metabones adapter with my Canon glass.  However I did in the end feel like the image quality was far better than my Canon 5D footage but felt my 5D was tougher and more long lasting in the field, so to speak.....
I have also been hearing loads about this Sony A6300 as I've been very intrigued and have been hearing that it's the "little brother to the A7S and includes log profiles for less than $1000?!?  But example footage seems a bit video looking and I didn't like the esthetic look of the footage I was seeing.  But that could have just been the footage I was looking at.  very curious to hear other opinions about this camera in particular.

Panasonic - I shot with a GH4 about 3 years ago and felt like images were a bit to sharp for my taste, that the skin tones were weird looking and hard to grade, and motion rendering seemed also a bit strange, like shutter speed was set incorrectly, but yet it wasn't.  However I feel like out of all the cameras above, it seems to fit all the check marks, in some way or close enough, and has he best bang for the buck.  And seems to be a fan favorite for all around good solid video work.  But can the image be tweaked to look as cinematic as Canon or Blackmagic?

 

So that's it on my thoughts.  I would love to hear your thoughts and recommendations on what I should replace my 5D Mark III with, based on these points I mention above!  Thanks in advance and look forward to the discussion!

[Shield3]

I was like you - I switched Canon to Sony (a7s, a7r, a7rii, a6300).  I have a small handful of native Sony lenses but heavily invested in Canon glass.  The Metabones adapter works ok but many times it'd lock up and I'd have to power the camera off and on again.  Some compatibility with Sigma EF mount lenses (it didn't work at the time with the Sigma 150-600 C for longer than 1 minute of video).  Random error codes, et al.  Twice this year my a7r2 had an issue that required it to be sent into Sony for repair.  My 5d3's never had this issue and I ran Magic Lantern.  Despite all of this, I never liked the Sony colors esp. skin tones.

So I started going back to Canon - got the 1dc and liked it, but didn't really shoot C-log nor understand how to grade it that well, so for me it wasn't worth keeping it.  So I shot pics with the 1dx for a while (I have since changed my mind about the 1dc now that I'm shooting C-log.  I will admit I was wrong there!)

Then I bought a C100 Mark II.  I figured out after reading and teaching myself how to expose and color (well, getting much better at it) C-log and I'm super thrilled with the results.  Built in ND, proper XLR audio, waveform, 1080p60 that isn't soft (a la 1dc), in camera over/under crank, quick access menus, good EVF.  Specs won't blow you away but the image is stunning.  It's like the 5d3 with Magic Lantern in C-log (provided you get close on exposure) and I love the battery life, form factor and reliability.

My son's spring travel baseball ended last week, so I picked up another 5d3 (and sold the 1dx).  So I've come full circle after 4 years ago buying my first 5d3.  At the end of the day it may not have everything (lower dynamic range, no 1080p60 or faster) but it's plenty fast enough for casual use, has gorgeous colors that need little tweaking in Lightroom. 

All I have to say is if you shoot people, stick with Canon.  Landscapes or something else perhaps not, or the 5dsr.

One more thing - the c100 is really, really, really good in low light.  In my eyes as good as the Sony a7s original or pretty close.  The Sony can crank up higher with less noise, but man, up to ISO 12800 the Canon retains a shit-ton of color detail and the Sony doesn't.

[BenEricson]

2 hours ago, syrcular said:

Professionally I work in post production and work with a lot of Arri Alexa footage, so I'm used to working with a very filmic look.  So astetically I strive to shoot footage of similar characteristics.  Outside of working in post I like to shoot short films, music videos and mostly narrative works.  I feel like I can do better in this day and age than the long in the tooth 5D.  Here are some features I'm looking to have in a new camera....

I just bought a Sony F3 and absolutely love the look. I wanted something that would put a bit thicker image than the C100ii. At work I use the C300ii, which is also outside of my budget. The F3 gives me really nice color and a really clean image. You can't get the crazy sharp 4k look that the C300ii can get, but the color is definitely there. It has a nice feel. You can get one used for 1500, throw a recorder in with the package it's only 2k. The size sucks, battery life is great, internal NDs, XLR audio. 

C100ii just dropped to 4k, I would imagine used they are around 3500? That's getting to be a pretty nice deal. If you're tired of the 5D, you may want to go for the 1DC. If you need XLR audio, maybe go for the C100.

[ntblowz]

Fuji XT2?

[IronFilm]

A radical but not so crazy idea.... as you're already using FujiFilm for all your stills, why not for your video too? :D

As wait a little while and see how this turns out, it seems it might just maybe be quite awesome:

 

[squig]

I wouldn't replace my MK3 with any of those, but I'm shooting raw. The A6300 has the worst rolling shutter of any camera since DSLRs did video. The BMMCC is ok, but its IQ is no match for the 5D. 4k eh... nobody ever complained about the Alexa being too soft.

[Policar]

Another vote for the C100 Mk II. Far better image quality than the 5D RAW (and black magic for what that's worth) and best in class ergonomics if you like a pineapple/dSLR rig. I too work 95% with Alexa footage (in post), mostly network/tier one cable, advertorial, and indie features, and have found the C100 and C300 to be the best b cameras and I have shot everything out there. I recently rented my C100 kit to the studio where I worked (I would use it as a B camera for their Alexa, after grading we couldn't tell the difference, but the image is much thinner on the Canon, must be exposed much more carefully, and we had an external recorder and frankly I know how to expose correctly as I grew up on 4x5 slide film) and it was their choice and the DP's choice for Alexa B camera. Where I often work now shoots Alexa with a C300 as back up and for pick ups and they intercut much better than Alexa and Red. I know the camera gets a bad rap for its small efficient codec, but in most of the work it's designed for–low end corporate (Alexa being the high end corporate standard), weddings, low end documentary, etc. it's good to have small files. Beware the lack of timecode sync, however.

The F3 isn't bad but the internal codec (despite a higher bit rate) is poor and the ergonomics are a nightmare, the lens situation is dire due to the PL mount, too. But the F3 is a nice camera, weirdly I have had better luck with it than the F5, though in-camera LUTs can turn the F5's image into a boring one that can be graded well, whereas bare SLOG2 has chroma clipping that's disastrous, a knock against the A7S, too.

[Mattias Burling]

IMO,
For image quality alone Blackmagic, any day. But a C100ii has the run n gun advantage.
An a6300 is nice, I have one, but full of really annoying issues and would gladly trade it for a 5Dmkiii any day. ML Raw is much nicer than the Sony 4K and it has better ergonomics and more video features.

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, Policar said:

The F3 isn't bad but the internal codec (despite a higher bit rate) is poor and the ergonomics are a nightmare, the lens situation is dire due to the PL mount, too. But the F3 is a nice camera, weirdly I have had better luck with it than the F5, though in-camera LUTs can turn the F5's image into a boring one that can be graded well, whereas bare SLOG2 has chroma clipping that's disastrous, a knock against the A7S, too.

I always use my F3 with the external monitor for its features, thus always getting 10bit 422 as well
As for ergonomics... that can be very subjective, depends on what the person is looking for.

I think the ergonomics of the F3 is rather good, I certainly prefer its ergonomics to cameras such as the C300 or BMCC. 

[zerocool22]

Weird that people are finding that the c100 is better then the 5DIII RAW, as I find the opposite. I shoot with both, and 5D III ML RAW is a hassle in post production and disk space. But the IQ is so much more better to my eyes, yes it is soft. Thats why I like it. So it is good for narrative work, but not for your everyday hassle. I even find my 5D III RAW superior to my c300. (better colors due to 14bit, nice highlight roll off, but the c300 is way sharper). 

So I am waiting on the 5D IV, if magic lantern will be enabled on that camera. Then I could shoot everything with that camera. Use the 4K for everyday hassle shooting(and use 4K to have a sharper image then the 5d iii 1080p), and when I want to shoot som epic narrative stuff. I could enable RAW 

[Inazuma]

I hold the unpopular opinion on this forum that the c100 II is not worth it. It's £3000+ for a camera that has no better dynamic range than a Panasonic or Nikon (trust me I tried really hard to find a difference). Really does not grade well at all (loads of compression artefacts when you push/pull exposure/shadows). The LCD and viewfinder have poor resolution and colour reproduction. Weird control system (v easy to change shutter speed, iso, aperture and WB but things like Zebras and peaking are a button on the side of the camera which you have to look for to press).

You should consider a Canon 1DC. Also that new Fuji XT2 is lookin good, although I don't know how good/bad the rolling shutter is. Also a Panasonic G7. I am going to release a LUT at some point that changes the colours to be more like that of a Canon/nikon.

[cpc]

Sound like you aren't using Magic Lantern? If this is indeed the case you aren't using your Canon camera in all its glory.  

[Django]

Funny.. I just bought a 5DIII (there are crazy good deals on it right now) although mainly for stills and as B-cam to my recently acquired C100 DPAF. I just love the L glass.. and Canon skin tones. Ergonomics, doesn't get much better then EOS Cxx. A7S2 is seriously good but for it's price i've got a problem with the consumer-y body, horrible menu/ergonomics and battery life. and yeah S-log3 at 8-bit doesn't really cut it in post.. I'd wait a month or two until 5D4 gets announced if you wanna remain DSLR.. especially if you're invested in Canon glass..

[Policar]

25 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

I hold the unpopular opinion on this forum that the c100 II is not worth it. It's £3000+ for a camera that has no better dynamic range than a Panasonic or Nikon (trust me I tried really hard to find a difference).

Your inability to expose and grade shouldn't have any bearing on anyone else's purchase. The GH4 has maybe 10-11 stops of DR; Nikons 9-10; the C300 has 12, on par with the Red MX, but below the F5, FS7, AS7, and Dragon (if shot at 5000K+, it's worse than the rest with tungsten).

If you had trouble shooting and grading so you could access the information (you'll lose the entire advantage if you treat super whites incorrectly and accidentally clip them or apply an S curve instead of hard clipping at the bottom and a life on the gamma and gain, unlike true LOG) that's fine, but for someone with extensive experience in post (like the original poster and myself), you will get far more dynamic range out of the cinema camera. And its weakest point is DR.

The ergonomics are really easy to use after a week or two. There are more buttons, but each is mapped to a function, unlike the vast menus of dSLRs (which I find confusing, I even find the Amira more confusing than the Alexa, though, to be fair). 

But "I tried a professional camera and couldn't figure it out" is no reason to dismiss it.

The viewfinder on the Mk I is the worst thing ever, though, I'll give you that. And it doesn't make exposing easy. I use a 758 cine and have had good luck with that, and after learning the waveform monitor I can expose competently without an external meter. If you're having trouble exposing, I suggest calibrating your meter; the sekonics are often off by as much as a half stop and, to be fair, the internal codec appreciates a little overexposure so it can be tricky. 

[Jpr]

FS5 is a great camera out the box, has everything that you want on that list and more - also has the option to be a raw shooting monster (the raw quality out the fs5 is fantastic - fs700 quality at least and slog3 support coming in August which will be a massive boost) with upgrade + O7q+/inferno. Its small enough and light enough that handholding is fine, not so much with a big recorder on the top but you probably won't need the raw recording unless you are on sticks/shoulder mount anyway. It is possible to handhold but you are looking at about 5kg with lens/battery/o7q+drives etc.

[Marco Tecno]

samsung nx1 with hacked fw, if you can still find one at a reasonable price

[Inazuma]

46 minutes ago, Policar said:

Your inability to expose and grade shouldn't have any bearing on anyone else's purchase. The GH4 has maybe 10-11 stops of DR; Nikons 9-10; the C300 has 12, on par with the Red MX, but below the F5, FS7, AS7, and Dragon (if shot at 5000K+, it's worse than the rest with tungsten).

If you had trouble shooting and grading so you could access the information (you'll lose the entire advantage if you treat super whites incorrectly and accidentally clip them or apply an S curve instead of hard clipping at the bottom and a life on the gamma and gain, unlike true LOG) that's fine, but for someone with extensive experience in post (like the original poster and myself), you will get far more dynamic range out of the cinema camera. And its weakest point is DR.

The ergonomics are really easy to use after a week or two. There are more buttons, but each is mapped to a function, unlike the vast menus of dSLRs (which I find confusing, I even find the Amira more confusing than the Alexa, though, to be fair). 

But "I tried a professional camera and couldn't figure it out" is no reason to dismiss it.

The viewfinder on the Mk I is the worst thing ever, though, I'll give you that. And it doesn't make exposing easy. I use a 758 cine and have had good luck with that, and after learning the waveform monitor I can expose competently without an external meter. If you're having trouble exposing, I suggest calibrating your meter; the sekonics are often off by as much as a half stop and, to be fair, the internal codec appreciates a little overexposure so it can be tricky. 

I had the camera for half a year and used the hell out of it. I had no problems exposing etc.  You can gargle numbers at me all you want but I test the shit out of all my cameras and really found no discernible difference in DR. And ergonomics are subjective of course but the LCD/viewfinder were inferior to even my lx100 ( and I was using the mark ii not I)

[Ehetyz]

1 hour ago, zerocool22 said:

Weird that people are finding that the c100 is better then the 5DIII RAW, as I find the opposite. I shoot with both, and 5D III ML RAW is a hassle in post production and disk space. But the IQ is so much more better to my eyes, yes it is soft. Thats why I like it. So it is good for narrative work, but not for your everyday hassle. I even find my 5D III RAW superior to my c300. (better colors due to 14bit, nice highlight roll off, but the c300 is way sharper).

Going on a bit of a tangent here, but I'm constantly surprised by people claiming 5D2/3 RAW to be a hassle or difficult in post. I mean, sure, compared to 8-bit cameras with baked-in profiles it probably is, and you have one more step of transcoding, but compared to S-log or Blackmagic cameras, it's a breeze. Exposed correctly, 5D RAW is usually beautiful already in REC709 and only needs small adjustments, maybe an LUT, whereas BMCC and Sony require you to work over everything in the image to get usable results.

In Resolve, I've found I'm satisfied with 5D Raw after a correction of 3-4 nodes. S-log2 and BMCC usually take 9-15 nodes. If I could get a 100% trustworthy Canon Raw camera, I'd never use anything else.

[Mattias Burling]

3 minutes ago, Ehetyz said:

5D RAW is usually beautiful already in REC709 and only needs small adjustments, maybe an LUT, whereas BMCC and Sony require you to work over everything in the image to get usable results.

Imo all the Raw camera I've tried looks great already in Rec709. BMCC included.

[zerocool22]

23 minutes ago, Ehetyz said:

Going on a bit of a tangent here, but I'm constantly surprised by people claiming 5D2/3 RAW to be a hassle or difficult in post. I mean, sure, compared to 8-bit cameras with baked-in profiles it probably is, and you have one more step of transcoding, but compared to S-log or Blackmagic cameras, it's a breeze. Exposed correctly, 5D RAW is usually beautiful already in REC709 and only needs small adjustments, maybe an LUT, whereas BMCC and Sony require you to work over everything in the image to get usable results.

In Resolve, I've found I'm satisfied with 5D Raw after a correction of 3-4 nodes. S-log2 and BMCC usually take 9-15 nodes. If I could get a 100% trustworthy Canon Raw camera, I'd never use anything else.

By all means I did not mean that the IQ, color, grading is hard. I meant that the files are big(I always need a lot of storage) and are a real struggle for my pc to edit (CPU and GPU wise) And also the workflow, having to transcode the footage or using mlvfs. It just takes more time and effort to edit a project.