5D Mark III vs GH2 vs NEX 7

[Schol]

Around resolution : [b]Andrew REID[/b] said GF2  intercut well with MKII....

[b]Maybe Andrew it's time to show us your GF2 rushes we are waiting for ?[/b]  :)

I'm really curious to see if Adrew GF2 footage can be mixed with original soft MKIII rushes ?


Thanks a lot !!!

[leonbeas]

Well i have heard that, mysteriously all the footage from MKIII seen in internet until now is somehow soft but that many people is no seeing any softness. Can someone explain this?

If so, i would like to see a nice side by side comparison between all three cameras in specific situations.
Tripod please, these cams don't go well in hand. (24p and 30p)

1. Interior/restaurant/night/two people/talking natural light (50mm equivalent).
-to check low light capability,grain, skin tone, blacks, film look.

2. Exterior/street, buildings/sun peak hour/wide shot/high contrast situations  (24mm equivalent).
-to check highlights, dynamic range, strobe movement, film look.

3. Moving extreme small textures, like smoke, sea waves, leafs in a tree, grass (panning), etc.
-to check artifacts, compression, rolling shutter (on panning).

4. Latest but not least, hand held following a person walking. With Image Stabilization on (85mm equivalent).
-to check stabilization and how camera and codec stands for movement.

I would like to do this myself but don't have the equipment to do so.
This will show us the reality between the two cameras, on they week points.

[karoliina]

The 5D mark III in this comparison obviously looks a lot better than the NEX-7. However, it loses big time for GH2 in detail especially in the grass. The grass captured by 5D mark III looks muddy and to my eye it is not pleasing but feels like out of focus or like way too heavily compressed jpeg.

Honestly, I would prefer a camera that resolves more 1920x1080 rather than SD especially because it comes with a high definition price tag anyway. And where would I need 2k pixels in the file if I only get 1K pixels or less resolution?

Found a resolution chart test from vimeo, shot with 5D mark III and Sony EX1:
https://vimeo.com/39536799

[katon]

[quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3447#msg3447 date=1333550930]
IDIOT!! How long ago did you have your lobotomy?
And have you learn't your first play by numbers guitar song on your tube amp yet?
Hope its point to point cause tossers like you always need help...to cover up for the fact they cant play or make sense...sad!!
[/quote]

Astro i think you've become a bit lost in all this. You've been more insulting than anyone!

[quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3440#msg3440 date=1333542746]
Actually your arguments were pretty flawed in regards to audio...Cameras are digital beasts that largely record digital info to a flash card or drive.
Therefore to compare to Audio you need to compare to a more or less totally digital card...A particular model of Hammerfall, M-Audio or presonus or whatever else, in order to make a reasonable comparison.
AD/DA (especially DA) does not really come into it and therefore makes no sense, so your argument that sound cards differ greatly because of the quality of A/D converters is more or less a moot point, plus AD/DA was a much bigger deal in the 1990's than it is now because of prices and technology.
And in DAW's then there is no AD required at all with VSTI or plain VST plugs and also AU plugins...its all digital.
Now all the processing inside the GH2 or Mk3 is LSI based not tape etc... so AD convertors are not the real issue that is being compared.
Hopefully we are done with that...Now all cards (even cheaper ones) have the option to record data at higher frequencies based on the 44.1khz and 48khz  multiplication...agreed?
Canon has a $3,500 camera that does not allow the user to record at higher resolutions, if that was done in Audio (say it could only record at 44.1 or even less) then they would be laughed out of the market...and I stand solidly behind that point, digital is digital...its numbers.
Canon decided not too do this within their $3,500 camera, and it may bite them, and many are saying this.
Sooner or later Cameras will have to play on a more level playing field regarding the option to record at higher resolutions, thats surely not hard to understand, and that appears to be Andrews point, and I agree with that.
[/quote]

ok i'm rereading your first paragraph…

Firstly, i never brought Audio in to it. Your point about DAW's not requiring AD is completely untrue. Many people work with analogue outboard, this means going through AD/DA, not to mention the AD conversion needed when you record from microphones, or the v important D/A to go to your speakers.

You made a point that Audio is far ahead of cameras. I would say it is not, in fact it is in pretty much a similar place and facing a similar challenge and dilemma due to what the public wants. With audio they want the analog sound, with cameras they want the 'filmic' feel. My point when you raised the analogy to audio was that many people prefer to use analogue outboard rather than doing everything in a DAW. Their 'taste' prefers the imperfect. The smoothness, the warmth, the distortion, the organic feel and nature of what analogue outboard brings.

A vast amount of the digital Audio world over the last 10 or so years has been trying to recreate the imperfect nature of analogue equipment. Some of the most prized equipment and microphones date back to the 50's and 60's. Look at how much a Neumann U47 sells for, or a Fairchild 670 compressor, and how many companies are trying to deliver the 'analogue' sound.

In a similar way, i would also say that over the last 20 or so years, digital camera technology has been trying to replicate the look and 'feel' of film, something that predates it by decades. So digital camera technology has been trying to get the 'filmic' feel; ability to shoot progressive, high dynamic range, filmic colour rendition, grain like noise, 35mm sensor size, a lack of aliasing and so on. Now, some cameras technically exceeded the look of film, they are more 'accurate' in their portrayal of real life, of what is in front of them. For example if you were to watch a 35mm print that has been through the inter-neg / positive release and distribution process it would have between 600-850 lines on screen of relative resolution. I remember watching a 35mm vs F900 test. The F900 was super sharp and nasty. There is sharpness and then there is sharpness. Put a 4K scanned film that has been output to 1920x1080 next to an F900 at 1920x1080 and i can assure you the type of sharpness they exhibit is very different, i much prefer the look of film. Also, there are cameras that have a more 'realistic' portrayal of colours, whereas film can be 'inaccurate', but it's inaccuracies and imperfections can be beautiful. People choose certain glass because it softens, brings warmth. Look at some old cookes next to modern Zeiss glass for instance.

If you want your 5DMKIII to intercut with a camera that exhibits an electronic digital type of sharpness, you're going to have a problem. But cut the 5D in with the Alexa and film, and it can be remarkably close in the 'feel' of the image, because the MKIII does not have an aliasing heavy sharpness. Sure the 5DMKIII may technically have less resolution, and yet when it cuts in it blends far better than technically superior cameras that exhibit a more digital 'real' feeling sharpness. For the money it costs, this ability that the 5DMKIII has is quite wonderful.

[Andrew Reid]

Katon and Astro. Not taking sides but will say this: think of the value you can add to the forum, and what others would find interesting to read.

[icarrere]

katon, I was enjoying your point of view, try to explain your experience, thanks

[katon]

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=515.msg3458#msg3458 date=1333578026]
Katon and Astro. Not taking sides but will say this: think of the value you can add to the forum, and what others would find interesting to read.
[/quote]

I think people are probably at least finding our bickering entertaining :P

[katon]

[quote author=Ignacio Carrere link=topic=515.msg3460#msg3460 date=1333582224]
katon, I was enjoying your point of view, try to explain your experience, thanks
[/quote]

Can you be more specific? Not sure what you're asking exactly

[Astro]

[quote]
Astro i think you've become a bit lost in all this. You've been more insulting than anyone!
[/quote]
Actually my previous comment was not directed towards you at all, but at hmcindie, read his comment and you will know why.

I dont disagree with a lot of your points on Audio, especially the points about trying to re create Fairchilds, Vintage Compressors and Tape emulation in plug ins.
Everyone is doing it...some better than others.
Yes its true that Neumann U47's sell for a packet and Fairchilds, and instruments like pre CBS Strats, 59 Les Pauls and so on.
Slightly off topic...but beesneez make a very good mic capsule and mic, I have heard them A/B'd with Nuemann's under extreme conditions (compression etc..) that utterly crush the tinfoil tone of Chinese capsules and the results are impressive [url=http://www.beesneezmicrophones.com.au/]http://www.beesneezmicrophones.com.au/[/url]
I dont disagree with your points about Film by an large either, but I do like a certain type of sharp look on occassion, although I do agree theres sharp and then theres sharp!.
I wont drag on with the AD/DA argument, even tho I had some points to add because Andrew wants us to move on.
It has been entertaining however (I hope others may have been amused too)...bantering and debating can at least keep you alert...so thanks for that.
Now back to the reality of work
Cheers

[katon]

[quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3463#msg3463 date=1333584761]
[quote]
Astro i think you've become a bit lost in all this. You've been more insulting than anyone!
[/quote]
Actually my previous comment was not directed towards you at all, but at hmcindie, read his comment and you will know why.

I dont disagree with a lot of your points on Audio, especially the points about trying to re create Fairchilds, Vintage Compressors and Tape emulation in plug ins.
Everyone is doing it...some better than others.
Yes its true that Neumann U47's sell for a packet and Fairchilds, and instruments like pre CBS Strats, 59 Les Pauls and so on.
Slightly off topic...but beesneez make a very good mic capsule and mic, I have heard them A/B'd with Nuemann's under extreme conditions (compression etc..) that utterly crush the tinfoil tone of Chinese capsules and the results are impressive [url=http://www.beesneezmicrophones.com.au/]http://www.beesneezmicrophones.com.au/[/url]
I dont disagree with your points about Film by an large either, but I do like a certain type of sharp look on occassion, although I do agree theres sharp and then theres sharp!.
I wont drag on with the AD/DA argument, even tho I had some points to add because Andrew wants us to move on.
It has been entertaining however (I hope others may have been amused too)...bantering and debating can at least keep you alert...so thanks for that.
Now back to the reality of work
Cheers
[/quote]

Your quote was directed at someone else, i know, just made me chuckle.

Yeah i know Beezneez. Was going to send them one of my CK12's for re-skinning. Went with someone else in the end. Good mics.
Don't worry about Andrew. If you have a point about AD, do make it. There's some interesting points being brought up and i'm sure it's keeping some people reading this thread, which is only good for his site.

You like a certain type of sharp sometimes, no problem. Everyone has their own sense of aesthetics and preferences. There's a debate going on and it's been largely one sided for a fair while, I'd just like to raise awareness for the other side of the 5D sharpness coin.

[icarrere]

I use to shoot with a 5D MKII and a 7D, and I´m agree that, when oversharpened in camera is very uggly. Regarding the GH2 I´ve seen some footage taken with vintage lenses, with details but no oversharpened, it has less vibrant colours, but for me that´s no important. I see details but no alising.

EF mount is frustrating for anamorphic shooting. I would like a Canon mirroless (so I could put any lens) full frame with crop mode. and then ask for the rest.
Excuse me, I don´t know englsh so well and I have to make an efford.

Katon, I was interested in your experience editing and mixing footage from Alexa, Red and "minor" ones.  Thank you

[TJB]

No sheep in this comparison video.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfA2mTMt0u8#ws]The F%^&ing Nikon D800 vs. Canon 5D mkIII Shootout[/url]

[johnnymossville]

[quote author=TJB link=topic=515.msg3479#msg3479 date=1333639338]
No sheep in this comparison video.
[/quote]

So what I see is,.... Mark III, VERY good low light camera, but blurry image pretty much everywhere. 

[bwhitz]

"Katon, I was interested in your experience editing and mixing footage from Alexa, Red and "minor" ones.  Thank you"

Yes, me too. Because I use to love my 7D/5D, until I saw Alexa and Red footage. On a good 1080p monitor, like my 24" Apple cinema display, Canon DSLR footage cannot be any further from Red or Alexa footage. It looks like SD in direct comparison.The GH2 with proper lensing looks MUCH MUCH more like Alexa or Red. If it doesn't, you're probably using the cruddy Panasonic lenses. Which I agree... look very video like. But put some Canon, Nikon, or Ziess glass on the GH2 and bam!!! It's a baby Alexa or Red! In fact, I really like using older, less contrasty, lenses on the GH2. Really gives it a nice edge in exposure range and combats the baked in contrast.

Allot of the "the Canon look" is just using Canon lenses. Same with the Nikon look. The GH2 renders very balanced neutral colors, with a slight  green bias. The "look" of the GH2 is HEAVILY dependent on the glass for this reason.

I just got a request the other day after someone saw my hacked GH2 short because they wanted "The girl with the dragon tattoo" look. They specifically didn't want the 5D... said it looked like "old movies". Times are a changin'.

[jlev23]

so, i have some super sharp and amazing quality night time video i shot in time square for a job, i tried posting it for you all to see on vimeo, but i keep getting a failure to convert message, anyone else know whats going on with that or how else i can show you guys. if you saw this footage you would see there is nothing soft about it in the least.

[bwhitz]

[quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3500#msg3500 date=1333726475]
so, i have some super sharp and amazing quality night time video i shot in time square for a job, i tried posting it for you all to see on vimeo, but i keep getting a failure to convert message, anyone else know whats going on with that or how else i can show you guys. if you saw this footage you would see there is nothing soft about it in the least.
[/quote]

Don't know? What's the format you're trying to upload?

But yea, I'm sure it looks great. It's not a bad camera, just really soft and not a 1080p image. I use to think that my 5D/7D were sharp too, but then I upgraded to a 24" 1920x1200 cinema display and saw how Red/Alexa/GH2 footage really looks at 1080p... then it made my 5D footage look like standard definition. Same thing with the 5DIII. Looks great on my little 13" macbook screen... looks terribly soft on my desktop.

I do have 20/10 vision though... so I'm extra sensitive to this stuff.  :P

[jlev23]

im trying to upload the file that comes straight from the camera as i stated, h264 1080p. i shoot with epics and alexas every week, i know the difference. but I'm not sure whats wrong with your camera but my 5dmk3 is sharp as hell. theres no comparison to epics 4k sharpness but thats not a good thing, i never shoot beauty our life style with it, only vfx. my gh2 is pretty sharp as well but noway looks as filmic as my 5d and when you try to grade it, it to all falls apart, as does the 7d. the 5d is the only dslr that can handle any sort of grading. i also was shooting a green screen shoot with two epics yesterday and did some green screen 5d tests and the vfx director did some post tests and told me he was surprised how well it handled keying compared to his 5dmk2. also we had a stills guy on set taking pictures with his nikon d800 he rented, i was able to check one thing, we both dialed in the same iso of 640, same shutter speed, he had a 2.8 wide open and i had my kit lens at a f4, and compared out lcds...his was so much darker! infact he had to adjust the shutter a stop and half worth of speed before we matched lcds.

[katon]

funny timing....

A new post on Shane Hurlbut's blog putting the C300 side by side with the Alexa.

[url=http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/04/dueling-canon-c300-and-arri-alexa/]http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/04/dueling-canon-c300-and-arri-alexa/[/url]

Notice how the C300 appears quite a bit sharper, with more detail, particularly in the skin. To me, the Alexa is more pleasing and filmic (even though it might look 'soft' by comparison), and this goes for the 5DMKIII also. The 5D has the same type of unaliased image which i prefer. I find the C300 much more video (in fact i chose the 5DMKIII over the C300 for a recent drama project ). Personal taste...

[jlev23]

exactly, the 5Dmk3 footage for me has been the first nice compliment to the alexa...and I'm not just going by my eye, I'm going by the word of the top colorist in the country. its just funny that how people discuss things on this forum they should rename it the anti-eos forum.

[christianhubbard]

gh2 circlejerk forum?


KIDDING.

i love the gh2's image AND the 5d3's.

I think they work wonderfully together and are entirely different tools, at different price points, for different jobs.  :)