5D MKIII or GH3

[jasonmillard81]

I am curious on a few items regarding DSLR and mirrorless video making.

 

The 5d MK III is amazing in low light but is said to be soft

The GH3 is amazing in sub-800 ISO but is said to be to "home video" feeling for cinematic looks

 

The resolution and image quality on this GH3 video is stunning:  http://vimeo.com/63349774

 

But the cinematic feel and hollywood quality of this is equally stunning:

http://vimeo.com/49269403

 

Anyway to get the GH3 to look as cinematic?  I'm thinking not if most of, if not all, the videos on Vimeo don't show that?  Also What about getting the 5D to sharpen like the GH3?  Not possible?

 

Seems like it's a trade off...

 

GH3:  great sharp image but lack of cinematic feeling and poor ISO performance in low light

5D3: great cinematic feel and ISO performance in low light but not as crystal clear as the GH3

 

Not sure where to go regarding purchase!

[Chrad]

I don't have a 5D but I do have a GH3 and I don't feel the 'lack of cinematic feeling' to be a problem. People said that about the GH2.

Does this look cinematic to you? http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/upstreamcolor/

Shot on a GH2.

 

I feel the GH3 has better colour rendition, dynamic range, and noise structure than the GH2, so it's no less cinematic.

 

One thing you should be aware of is that the GH3 does sometimes exhibit moire artefacts. The 5DMKIII and GH2 don't. It's not as bad as it is on non-5DIII Canons or non D5200 Nikons, or a Sony camera, but it is present.

[voyagervideo]

The cinematic look is achieved more via lighting, lenses, production value and in post via grading.  I don't think either camera has a more "cinematic" look out of the box.  The GH3 is sharper, the advantage there is you can always tone it down in post.  You can't make Mark III footage sharper than it was shot.  If you want the full frame look go with the Mark III, I believe both camera's sensors are roughly equi-distant in size to industry standard Super 35 (1.5x crop).

 

When it comes to grading, the Mark III beats the GH3 slightly in terms of dynamic range.  Both have 8-bit codecs (even "uncompressed") so your ability to grade is fairly restricted in either case.

 

As far as the Mark III's uncompressed HDMI that is starting to emerge, it's just firmware, the camera is simply being "unlocked".  I imagine Panasonic will do the same with the GH3 as the Blackmagic cameras become more available.  Even then though, expect to pay another one or two grand for a good uncompressed recorder.  For the price of a Mark III body, you can buy a GH3 and some great glass, it's kind of a no-brainer.

 

I love my GH3, but if I had the money to consider a Mark III, I would go with a Blackmagic, haha.  Even the pocket cam will probably beat both in terms of image quality, dynamic range, cinematic look.  Of course it's a smaller sensor than either, and if you're interest is also in photography, go with the Mark III.

[Mondo]

You'll have more options for lenses for that cinematic look with the GH3 or even GH2. Mirrorless allows you to adapt anything to it, as opposed to the 5D III which is limited. But as voyagervideo said, it's not just the camera, but the other aspects you use to create your look, like lenses, lighting, etc.

[Zach]

You can't make Mark III footage sharper than it was shot.  

It actually sharpens pretty nicely in post, though it is of course limited

[Ben Prater]

If you are getting started in production video, you can't beat the GH3. In the price difference between the GH3 and 5D, you can get a couple great lenses. Unless you need what the 5D does best -- full-frame or awesome low-light performance, it just isn't the best option anymore for  a camera system.

 

Remember, the more crisp and clear the image (GH3), the more options you'll have in post to push it toward something cinematic. The GH2 probably beats the GH3/5D out of the box for purely cinematic image. Check out 2012 Zacuto's Shootout -- the GH2 was a clear favorite.

 

If you want the best cinematic image currently coming out of a camera in this range -- the BMCC is the clear winner. When the Pocket variation comes out, it'll be the winner in terms of low-cost/high-performance image quality. With 10-bit performance and RAW when you need it, Blackmagic blows the doors off any other camera systems under $5k.

[Chrad]

My advice to the OP is to be careful about Blackmagic cameras. Barely anyone has the original camera, announced last April for a release in July (2012). They were struck by a huge production delay. Now, before they've even come close to clearing out the back orders, they've announced two new cameras, again for a July release. Blackmagic's word about release dates is worth next to nothing.

 

The other issue is that when they do ship, the Blackmagic cameras are going to be very expensive to maintain. They RAW and even Prores file sizes have big storage and processor requirements relative to any other camera you may be considering. 

Personally I'm content with the Panasonic's for the time being, and I'll move over to Blackmagic when I can afford to build a new system and storage prices have come down. I don't need the absolute bleeding edge - BMD's stuff will represent great quality that likely won't be matched in the consumer/prosumer area for years to come.

There's always value in being thrifty.

[AaronChicago]

My advice to the OP is to be careful about Blackmagic cameras. Barely anyone has the original camera, announced last April for a release in July (2012). They were struck by a huge production delay. Now, before they've even come close to clearing out the back orders, they've announced two new cameras, again for a July release. Blackmagic's word about release dates is worth next to nothing.

The other issue is that when they do ship, the Blackmagic cameras are going to be very expensive to maintain. They RAW and even Prores file sizes have big storage and processor requirements relative to any other camera you may be considering.
Personally I'm content with the Panasonic's for the time being, and I'll move over to Blackmagic when I can afford to build a new system and storage prices have come down. I don't need the absolute bleeding edge - BMD's stuff will represent great quality that likely won't be matched in the consumer/prosumer area for years to come.
There's always value in being thrifty.

BMCC is in stock at Adorama...

[Zach]

I am a 5d mark 3 owner and I say go with the GH3. I used the t2i for over a year before I had the 5D, and made some great work with it. The GH3 definitely has a leg up on low light over the crop sensor cameras I've used. Unless you find yourself shooting in caves using a cell phone as a light source, I really don't think the 5D's low light performance is all that useful. 

 

I'd say go with the Gh3 and invest in some good fast glass, and make sure you know how to light properly. 

[Sebv]

If i didnt have clients i woud have chosen the gh3

[voyagervideo]

If i didnt have clients i woud have chosen the gh3

 

Over the Mark III?  Do your clients really care?  Or are you saying if you didn't need a big dedicated videocamera to impress your clients you would just use a GH3?

[Chrad]

BMCC is in stock at Adorama...

The point still stands; it's not in stock almost anywhere else and many people are still waiting for cameras they pre-ordered a year ago.

[Sebv]

Over the Mark III?  Do your clients really care?  Or are you saying if you didn't need a big dedicated videocamera to impress your clients you would just use a GH3?

Yes to all of the questions

they do care, wen they ask what i shoot with i say mark iii, they say 5d ? i say yes, they say amen

the more clients are impress the less they ask question (more concentration for me) and they also listen more (production gets done faster)  

[voyagervideo]

Yes to all of the questions

they do care, wen they ask what i shoot with i say mark iii, they say 5d ? i say yes, they say amen

the more clients are impress the less they ask question (more concentration for me) and they also listen more (production gets done faster)  

 

Too bad, in the end it just ends up costing everyone involved more money.  I could tell my clients I'm shooting on an Alexa and they wouldn't know the difference.  It all looks pretty much the same on TV anyway if you know what you're doing.  It's unfortunate more clients don't get that.

[Zach]

Yes to all of the questions

they do care, wen they ask what i shoot with i say mark iii, they say 5d ? i say yes, they say amen

the more clients are impress the less they ask question (more concentration for me) and they also listen more (production gets done faster)  

This is unfortunately the case around here too. If you're shooting your own projects and short films it really doesn't matter. But if you're doing freelance, a lot of people expect (even if they're clueless) a 5D, or c300, etc. 

[jgharding]

I don't have a 5D but I do have a GH3 and I don't feel the 'lack of cinematic feeling' to be a problem. People said that about the GH2.

Does this look cinematic to you? http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/upstreamcolor/

Shot on a GH2.

 

In all honesty the look of the movement, especially with people in the frame, is distractingly camcorder-like, to my eyes. It looks very plastic and electronic. Even when it's I-frame hacked it still seems very smeary. It's not so bad with other subjects, but once there's people there it looks cheap. Also the highlights clip harder than an army barber. I still don't find the movement pleasing on the GH3 personally. Some love it though.

[Chrad]

jgharding, on 07 May 2013 - 19:07, said:
In all honesty the look of the movement, especially with people in the frame, is distractingly camcorder-like, to my eyes. It looks very plastic and electronic. Even when it's I-frame hacked it still seems very smeary. It's not so bad with other subjects, but once there's people there it looks cheap. Also the highlights clip harder than an army barber. I still don't find the movement pleasing on the GH3 personally. Some love it though.

I think Upstream Color was intentionally shot with a very over-exposed, white heavy look so that the limited dynamic range of the GH2 wouldn't be so much of a problem.

The one thing it does have going for it if you're shooting for the big screen is A TON of detail. And no moire, of course. The alternatives in the general price range can only give you one or the other.

I don't find the so-called 'smeary' video look to be an issue. It's fine to my eyes, but it's true that everyone's taste is different.
For the record, one of my favourite works of cinematography from the past decade is Miami Vice, king of the smeary video look. A lot of people would think I'm crazy for that, but what can I say, I like what I like.

[KarimNassar]

I don't have a 5D but I do have a GH3 and I don't feel the 'lack of cinematic feeling' to be a problem. People said that about the GH2.

Does this look cinematic to you? http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/upstreamcolor/

Shot on a GH2.

 

no not even close sorry.

 

It is a good example of how important the dp is on a shoot and how much of a difference he can make. Great work on his side for sure.

 

But it is also a good example of the limitation of such cameras, blown highlights, poor colors etc.
 

[KarimNassar]

@ Jason : a couple months ago I would have said gh2 without a hesitation.

As of today with the release of clean hdmi output and what magic lantern is developing with their firmware the decision could be harder.

 

Gh2 advantages and cons are well documented.

 

Look into the mark III clean hdmi out and what it can bring with an external recorder such as the ninja.

Look into what magic lantern has brought to the table and what they are working on.

Consider that the mark III delivers much better photographs than the gh2. You can use it on a professional photo assignment, gh2 not.

 

I would tell you if the latest regarding the mark III is worth your time but I have not looked much into it just read a couple bits here and there.

[jasonmillard81]

I'd have to agree...that trailer looks very amateur to me.  It looks like a camcorder shot it and that is precisely why I am nervous to purchase the GH3.  Granted, I am doing more videoing of family, friends, and some documentary work (run & gun...NYC B Roll, interviews etc) and not narrative per say, I'd still like a visually appealing set of images.

 

I am still on the fence.  I've seen some decent GH2 videos and if money wasn't an option I may have just sprung for the 5D MK III.  I could always buy the body and save for other equipment on a slower timeline.  Again, I am not doing this for work, but personal use.  That doesn't mean I should just buy the cheaper equipment either.

 

Quality is king, and right now the videos I'm being shown really show the GH3 in a negative light.  Hmm.