Video: 5D Mk. II compared to 5D Mk. III

[Chris Hurd]

EOS 5D Mark III EOSMOVIE on Vimeo

...and a sensitivity comparison as well:

Sensitivity comparison_5D3_??????? on Vimeo

[Brian Brown]

Nice! Wow... and they had me at "reduced moire' and rolling shutter." I'll let the peepers worry about "shoulda, coulda, woulda...", but I can't wait to get my 5D3 next week.

I don't do a lot of filming in the dark, but hopefully not having to have a wardrobe check for every executive and talking head I interview will make it worth it for me... and everything else is just icing on the cake.

Oh, yeah... I almost forgot: headphone jack!

[Khoi Pham]

Don't know if exact settings for highlights tone priority are on both camera but on the second video with the pool table, highlights seems to clip much more at the window on M3.

[Robert Turchick]

OMG! Look at the high ISO Color fidelity of the mk3! Not that I shoot up above 1600 regularly but that would sure make me want to throw my light kit away! And the lack of noise! Whoo hoo!
SEND ME MINE NOW CANON!!

[Bob Drummond]

The low-light functionality really excites me. This will be great for weddings. Hopefully I'll be able to get cleaner and brighter images while also using a slightly slower lens, like an f2.8 zoom.

[Jon Fairhurst]

The difference between the cameras at high ISOs is stunning - and it makes sense.

The 5D2 skips lines, so there are relatively few photosites - and fewer for red and blue than for green. So, as the light falls and ISO is increased, the image becomes green, accented with red and blue spurious noise. Color aliasing makes this even worse. The 5D3 accesses many more photosites, so the red and blue channels hang together with the green as ISO increases.

I received the VAF anti-aliasing filter recently. It really works! However, it won't reduce ISO noise. It doesn't work on ultrawide lenses. It changes the focus distances. It seems to add focus curvature to the view. It makes parfocal zooms non-parfocal. You have to replace and remove it when going between video and photos. It can extend the life of a 5D2 as a video cam, but the 5D3 is clearly the better solution.

[Khoi Pham]

Originally Posted by Bob Drummond

The low-light functionality really excites me. This will be great for weddings. Hopefully I'll be able to get cleaner and brighter images while also using a slightly slower lens, like an f2.8 zoom.

Yeah, all of our F2.8 should now become F1.4, oh YEAH.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

it won't reduce ISO noise. It doesn't work on ultrawide lenses. It changes the focus distances. It seems to add focus curvature to the view. It makes parfocal zooms non-parfocal. You have to replace and remove it when going between video and photos.

Boy, I can't wait to get one Jon. Those sounds like legal qualifiers at the end of an E.D.ad.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Fortunately, the VAF doesn't cause dizziness or irritable bowel syndrome. :)

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

I'm still on the bench with the 5D Mark III. The low-light performance is greatly improved at high ISO, although there is not much difference beteeen the Mk2 & Mk3 at normal light levels. I was also hoping to see a bigger improvement in moire patterns and fine repeated moving patterns (look at the yellow outside wall at 6400 ISO and 12800 on Mk3 clip, - it still looks terrible and shimmers a lot).

During brighter light levels, such as in the stone pavement clip, it certainly looks better with the Mark3, but before I take the plunge with all that extra dosh, I'd like to see how it copes with fine surface ripples on water during a breeze. This is where the Mark II falls apart.

Even though the mk3 was 'cleaner' at extreme low light or night scenes, the mk2 performance can be greatly improved by simply adjusting gamma levels and contrast in post (although some highlight details are then lost).

Having said all of the above, there is no doubts that the new Mark III is a superior performer on many levels. I've been pulled towards the D800 these past weeks...but maybe the Mk III will tempt me, instead of buying more Nikkors, or extra 'L' lenses for my Mk II.

My credit card must be quivering as I write this! :)

[Andy Wilkinson]

Some 5DMkII versus 5DMkIII comparative test shots (not my video). New kid on the block looks cleaner and has much less moire.

https://vimeo.com/38841621

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

The exposure looked incorrect for the subject in Derryck's video clips (very dull and under-exposed bank notes), and I would have liked to see a much tighter framing of the notes to ascertain just how much fine detail and moire was actually revealed by each camera. A pity, because fine detail in bank notes are a good subject to show these qualities.

The still frame crops helped a little, but not much. I also agree with him that the side-motion swipes reveal nothing about rolling shutter in the real world between the two.

Saika's two video clips reveal a lot more about the 5D Mk2 & Mk3 differences.

[Vladimir Druts]

Am I the only one noticing that the 5D MKIII acually looks much softer and lower resolution that even the 5DMKII, I'm quite unimpressed so far with all test shots.

Thinking of cancelling my pre-orders :/

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Vladimir,
A higher rez image/video gives a smoother rendition, and that may appear softer in compressed online viewing - like the difference between a low-res compressed jpeg file that has been sharpened in post, against an unsharpened Tiff or Raw image.

In most normal-lit scenes there would not be much difference between the Mk2 & Mk3, especially when viewed by the average audience. It is at the extremes of filming, such as at very low light levels, where the Mk3 will shine.

[Chris Hurd]

I think what we really need here is a side-by-side test of
the Mk. II and Mk. III, and we don't label the results and
ask folks to guess which one is which.

If there's somebody in the Austin / San Marcos / San Antonio
area interested in doing this, I can provide both cameras. Just
shoot me an email (chris at dvinfo dot net) and let me know.