Change to full frame better or same as crop

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Robert Benda

The full frame at f/2.8 would be about the same as the crop factor at f/1.8, OR, in a really dark room, let me keep the ISO at 2500 and shoot at f/1.8 where the crop factor, I'd have to push the ISO into some really noisy levels.

"Full frame" and f-stop are not linked when it comes to low light, if that where the case a 5dII should have the same low light performance as a 5dIII since both are full frame, ISO and f-stop are, so it all depends how well a camera can handle high ISO's which can enable you to close down the iris more so you have a more usable dof while a camera that gets noisy much faster at a higher iso needs to open the iris much more resulting in a much shallower dof.

[Dave Partington]

Kinda late to this thread, and I admit I haven't read every post fully, but here's my take….

We've been from all camcorders to all DSLR, then back to camcorders for some things and full frame DSLRs for others.

Why?

DSLRs (and in particular the 5D3) are awesome at two things:

1) Shallow DOF when you 'want' it

2) They can absolutely bite the nuts off a camcorder in low light.

OTOH they have a couple of major drawbacks:

1) The shallow DOF is a major PITA if you're stood at the front of a darkish church and you're trying to get both B+G in focus (from a side angle) while keeping the ISO low enough to not worry about noise. Even F8 won't do it sometimes (and the longer the lens, the more you need to stop down!). If you're at the back of a church and at 200mm f4 you still don't have enough DOF to get the B+G and minister in focus. You get to choose which, but you can't have both.

2) The short recording times (12mins 5D2, 20 mins D800, 29.59 5D3)

3) The poor audio support (although the 5D3 is not bad if you have an external feed)

They also miss the zebras and focus peeking and waveforms etc etc.

Batteries don't last long. Hell, my Canon XF100s run all day long on one battery while the 5D3 requires several changes, some of which need to be planned well if we're using them for dark environments for speeches that are dragging on.

There is no doubt, the 5D3 is the mutts nuts in low light. ISO6400 (if properly exposed) is usable. 8000 in a pinch. I've shipped footage shot at 12800 and not worried about it (a little kiss from neat video). You can just about shoot in the dark with a 24mm f1.4 lens, but then that's not a cheap one. Bars at a couple of venues come to mind for this setup. The camcorders just about die.

The 24-105L and 70-200 f2.8 are our normal goto kit with the 50 f1.4 and a couple of samyangs as backup.

But, there's no substitute for being able to throw the camcorder in to AF mode as the bride is walking towards you and the DOF afforded by the 1/3" chip gives you lots of room for error if people are moving around in speeches.

So, I'd hate to be back in the either/or camp. I like having both tools available to me, especially when I'm at a venue with crap (cough) "intimate" lighting with dark wood wall panels and I'm shooting a couple with dark skins. Oh man, the DSLR comes right out of bag then, no messing!

Damn. There's never a do all, be all piece of kit out there. Everything is a compromise and I guess it always will be.

[Eric Coughlin]

My understanding is that low light capabilities are generally related to two factors, pixel size and the camera processor's capability of handling ISOs. The reason the 5D III is better in low light than the 5D II is because the III has an improved processor.

As for pixel size, the larger the pixels are physically on the sensor reading, the more light that can be gathered on the pixel.

The 5D III's sensor size is 36mm × 24mm and its sensor is 22.3 Megapixels. So a 36mm x 24mm sensor is 864 square millimeters, and 22,300,000 pixels / 864 square millimeters is 25,810 pixels per square millimeter.

The 7D's sensor size is 22.3mm × 14.9mm and its sensor is 18.0 Megapixels. So a 22.3mm × 14.9mm sensor is 332.27 square millimeters, and 18,000,000 pixels / 332.27 square millimeters is 54,173 pixels per square millimeter.

The C100's sensor size is 24.6mm x 13.8mm and its sensor is 8.3 Megapixels. So a 24.6mm x 13.8mm sensor is 339.48 square millimeters, and 8,300,000 pixels / 339.48 square millimeters is 24,449 pixels per square millimeter.

As for a 1/3" traditional video camera, the XH-A1s's sensor size is 4.8mm x 3.6mm and its sensor is 1.67 Megapixels (though it has three CCD chips, so I'm not sure how that effects things). So a 4.8mm x 3.6mm sensor is 17.28 square millimeters, and 1,670,000 pixels / 17.28 square millimeters is 96,644 pixels per square millimeter.

So to sum up the amount of pixels that are crammed onto a square millimeter...
5D Mark III: 25,810
7D: 54,173
C100: 24,449
XH-A1s: 96,644

The smaller the number of pixels that are crammed into a square millimeter, the larger the pixels are. The larger the pixels, the more light each pixel can gather. So based on those numbers, the C100 is slightly better in low light than the 5D Mark III, which actually reflects real world results as well. Of course, again, the camera's processor also has a say in the matter.

[Steve Bleasdale]

There is no doubt, the 5D3 is the mutts nuts in low light. ISO6400 (if properly exposed) is usable. 8000 in a pinch. I've shipped footage shot at 12800 and not worried about it (a little kiss from neat video). You can just about shoot in the dark with a 24mm f1.4 lens, but then that's not a cheap one. Bars at a couple of venues come to mind for this setup. The camcorders just about die.

The 24-105L and 70-200 f2.8 are our normal goto kit with the 50 f1.4 and a couple of samyangs as backup.

But, there's no substitute for being able to throw the camcorder in to AF mode as the bride is walking towards you and the DOF afforded by the 1/3" chip gives you lots of room for error if people are moving around in speeches.

So, I'd hate to be back in the either/or camp. I like having both tools available to me, especially when I'm at a venue with crap (cough) "intimate" lighting with dark wood wall panels and I'm shooting a couple with dark skins. Oh man, the DSLR comes right out of bag then, no messing!

Damn. There's never a do all, be all piece of kit out there. Everything is a compromise and I guess it always will be.[/QUOTE]

Exactly what im saying Dave nice one and that's my arsenal I want. unless a gh3 owner can tell me otherwise....

[Steve Bleasdale]

Would anyone swap their 5d iii for the c100? One push button focus, peaking, fantastic low light, great dynamic range or has the 5d iii got better shallow depth of field. steve

[Arthur Gannis]

Just get the Sony A7, it will be out soon on the shelves. 1/2 the price of that 5D abd with the money saved will get you a few really nice primes to do your thing in low light.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Jeez Arthur, that looks decent, pheeew cant keep up..C100, 5d iii, sony rx10, sony a7, 70d, what else...

[Arthur Gannis]

I would scratch off the C100, the 70d, even the 5D3, and seriously look at them Sony's. That auto focus on video mode will make shooting a wedding a breeze. This bokeh and DOF thing is way too hyped about. You can still get that effect with F2.8 if you know to manipulate distance and focal length. If you really want F1.4 territory, then the A7 has it with Carl Zeiss glass.

[Dave Partington]

Originally Posted by Steve Bleasdale

Would anyone swap their 5d iii for the c100? One push button focus, peaking, fantastic low light, great dynamic range or has the 5d iii got better shallow depth of field. steve

I'd swap in a heart beat if the C100 wasn't quite so expensive. I'm seriously considering picking one up though…..

The shallow DOF on the 5D3 is great, but can also be a problem (i.e. when you want more DOF). The C100 images are so much sharper and the C100 is even better in low light.

With the dual pixel AF mode coming next year as an upgrade, the C100 looks even better.

In fact, if any one has a C100 they would like to swap for a 5D3 (with some adjustment of course) then gimme a shout!

[Steve Bleasdale]

Haha nice one Dave it looks tempting alright, my wife is barking mad already at me looking at one but it does look easier to use than a dslr. Got all the lens and the body is £3700 but should come down soon. Arthur onto something though that a7 looks great!!

[Steve Bleasdale]

Arthur already there seems moire issues with the a7

[Arthur Gannis]

Moire ?? then how about the 36mp version A7r ?

[Steve Bleasdale]

More expensive Arthur than the 5d iii...I think they are all gimmiks from Sony to just exploit the market and get those millions in...

[Dave Partington]

Originally Posted by Arthur Gannis

Moire ?? then how about the 36mp version A7r ?

If the 36MP D800 was anything to go by, yes there will be moire (I shot with one for a season). More MP doesn't always mean better video.

[Dave Partington]

Originally Posted by Arthur Gannis

Just get the Sony A7, it will be out soon on the shelves. 1/2 the price of that 5D abd with the money saved will get you a few really nice primes to do your thing in low light.

Take a look at this then…. comparison of moire & aliasing on the A7 vs 5D3.

Resolution / Aliasing / Comparison: Sony A7 vs. A7r vs. Canon 5D mark III cinema5D