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

[John Kim]

Hey Charles, The in-camera sharpening is set to 3.

Both Bloom and EOSHDdotcom mentioned the sharpening in post is better than the in-camera sharpening.

I'll take their word for it, but I personally did not do those test.

I may try that test in the next few days.

Overall I agree with Bloom's review.

For me personally, the low light capability of Mark 3 was enough for the upgrade.

Consider the price difference between a 35mm 1.4L vs 35mm 2.0 ( Almost $1000 )

For me, that fact alone is enough to justify the upgrade.

I agree the resolution and quality didn't change much. Which is fine with me.
I really like the look of 5D mark2.
Now I have a tool to shoot in lower light situations with my 5D mark 2 styled senor.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Mk 2 & Mk 3 comparison Review:

5d Mark III Review - Lady Arm Wrestlers and Tahitian Dancer.mp4 - YouTube

[Jim Newberry]

I'm looking for info on doing a 2 camera shoot with a II and a III. I'm guessing that they'll cut together well with footage at low ISO settings? Anything I should keep in mind with picture styles in this case, or any other concerns about color matching?

[Jon Fairhurst]

In general, I'd put the longer lens on the II and the wider on the III as the wider lens is more likely to have deep focus and small details that will alias. Ideally, you'd have a VAF-5D2 filter in the Mark II so that neither camera aliases, and you'd still want the longer lens on the II, given that the VAF doesn't play well below about 28mm, depending on the lens.

[Jim Giberti]

I would think they'd cut perfectly together.

Apparently I'm different from a lot 5D users though as the increased ISO doesn't really matter to me.

I don't think I've ever shot anything above 320 ISO on the II.
I get it for photography, but we light everything we shoot, indoors or out.

I'm actually amazed when I hear about people shooting at 1200 ISO let alone 12,500.

From a setting standpoint, you'll get the best latitude and image for post with it set neutral, with all flat settings.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I second the choice of Neutral with minimum sharpness and contrast. I often shoot with saturation at one tick below mid way, but that's a creative decision. I recently shot a toddler video, bumped the saturation to +1, and was really happy with the results. In fact +2 would have worked as I was going for bright, cheery primary colors rather than a subdued film look.

Unless I'm shooting a scene with all the content at the extremes (say, a closeup of a white rabbit eating black licorice on a black and white chess board), I avoid CineStyle these days. It simply steals too many bits from the mid tones. But if the scene is devoid of mid-tones, go for it! :)

As an example, I recently did a test shoot with a polarizer, putting the large blue sky in the mid tones. With CineStyle, the image was too flat and by the time I added contrast in post, the sky was terribly contoured with quantization errors. Shooting in Neutral gave much better results for that scene.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Originally Posted by Jim Newberry

I'm looking for info on doing a 2 camera shoot with a II and a III. I'm guessing that they'll cut together well with footage at low ISO settings? Anything I should keep in mind with picture styles in this case, or any other concerns about color matching?

Set both cameras to same Presets and they will match perfectly. They are basically the same cameras outside of extreme ISO levels.

I would maybe set the Mk3 sharpening one notch above the Mk2 to avoid doing it in post, but even that could be set equal on both bodies if you have time to do it in post.

[Jim Newberry]

Thanks for the responses guys.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Regarding the VAF filter, I would think that this would help the sharpness match between the two cameras. The 5D2 looks sharper, but that's likely due to false sharpness. I haven't seen a 5D2/VAF and 5D3 side to side shooting example, but I know that the 5D2 with VAF has a softer look than the 5D2 alone - pleasingly so, I might add.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

5D Mark II vs Mark III High ISO:

Canon 5D Mark II vs Canon 5D Mark III in a controlled high ISO test on Vimeo

5D Mark III v 5D Mark II video test: moiré, high ISO, rolling shutter & dynamic range:

5D Mark III v 5D Mark II video test: moiré, high ISO, rolling shutter & dynamic range - YouTube

[Jim Newberry]

I'm finishing up a music video I made with the 2 and 3 cut together. Something interesting I just noticed: let's say you're in FCP, and you've got a track with 5DM3 footage in your timeline. Then you add a clip from the 5DM2 above it (in effect cutting to the M2 shot). You'll have a hairline frame around the edge, because the 5DM2 frame is just a hair smaller. You don't notice it cutting from one camera to the other, only if you put the 5DM2 clip on top (over) the 5DM3 clip.

No big deal, I'll just crop everything to the smaller size, or remove the 5DM3 clips in the spots where they're underneath 5DM2 footage. But something to keep in mind.

[Maurice Covington]

After reading all of the posts, I don't know that I've made a decision one way or another. I went out and bought the Canon 7D. I felt squeezed due to it being a DX so I took it back and exchanged it for the 5DM2. I seemed to shoot a lot better with it although I think the video is sharper on the 7D. Now I'm considering an upgrade to the 5DM3 since Amazon has finally been able to confirm shipment. I don't know what to do. All this coming from a Nikon guy.

I actually chose not to go with the D800 because I think that the Canon 5DM2 and/or 5DM3 is the best total package.

I haven't had time to really use the 5DM2 but I'm wondering if the new focusing system will be a significant upgrade as well, I just don't know what to do but a decision needs to be made by Wednesday.

Suggestions anyone. Oh yeah and as some of you know, I am not anywhere close to the level of most of you in terms of my knowledge and experience. I have only shot with professional camcorders.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

I was in the same boat, Maurice, but in the end cancelled my D800 and Mk3 orders. I made a quick U-turn, paid cash for an extra Mark 2 body and some fantastic new lenses, and have no regrets.

[Brian Brown]

You're going to have to look at your own needs, Maurice. The moire'-reduction alone on the 5D3 is what cinched it for me. I film mostly headshot interviews with lots of b-roll building exteriors, that used to fall apart into a sea of rainbows with a 7D or 5D2. I think the D800 is pretty bad, too, in regards to moire'. The 5D3 can also take some rather aggressive post-sharpening that previous Canon DSLRs could not.

If you shoot landscapes and non-hard-edged sources, none of this might be important to you, and the 5D2 is a fine choice, and will save you over $1,000, and much more if you source a used one.

With the extra $ in my camera body, I now seek out affordable vintage prime lenses to shoot video footage instead of pricey L-glass, and have not been disappointed with old manual focus Nikkors and Super-Takumar lenses. Some even give a beautiful nostalgic look to my footage straight out of the camera.

[Maurice Covington]

The choice seems obvious given that I only shoot weddings and other social events along with music video's and EPK's, I honestly don't know that my clients would ever know the difference. I would love to get another lens or two with the money that I'm saving by keeping the M2.

Do any of you guys have a problem with the 12 minutes of video versus the 30 minutes on the MK3?

Does anyone know if the stills will be relatively the same on the M3? I know that it has the 61 point autofocus but with a 1 MP upgrade, is there much difference?