EOS 5D Mark III EOSMOVIE on Vimeo

...and a sensitivity comparison as well:

Sensitivity comparison_5D3_??????? on Vimeo

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!

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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! :)

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

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.

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 :/

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.

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.

Yes, that's certainly the best idea, Chris. To post a series of side-by-side Mk2 & Mk3 comparisons and then to not label which cameras are used, until plenty of opinions have been posted on this forum. I'm sure that there would be plenty of surprises...both ways. :)

I just received my 5D mark 3 today and ran a simple High ISO test.

Canon 5D Mark 3 High ISO Test vs Mark 2 on Vimeo

Each shot is Labled with name of camera and iso.

I'm really impressed with the 5d Mark 3's low light performance.

2-stops better than Mark 2

Thinking of cancelling my pre-orders :/

Watch Philip Bloom's review before you cancel your order.

Canon 5Dmk3 video review on Vimeo

There is a work around.

A comparison of the old Canon Mark II and new Nikon D800:

Ignore colour differences because colour profiles were not matched, although lens apertures/speed/ISO are the same.
It goes to show just how good the Mk2 still is. :)

D800 and 5D mk2 comparison on Vimeo

I've done daylight tests at 100 iso. with the mark2 and mark 3.

They look almost identical from a normal viewing distance.

Only when you pixel peep at 100% crop you start to see the difference in the compression noise.

The compression from the Mark 3's ALL-I is like a fine grain type noise and more evenly distributed.

The compression from the Mark 2 is a bit blotchy, especially in dark areas.

Even though the resolution and aesthetic look of the Mark 2 and Mark3 is very similar in daylight...

Mark3 can take a lot more Grading punishment than Mark 2,

because of its lower compression option.

Watch Philip Bloom's review before you cancel your order.

Also download his mp4 video from Vimeo and play it directly; it's much better than viewing from Vimeo. He doesn't say what "sharpening and grading" he uses, but the result is very nice.

I'm in the boat of trying to decide between the D800 and the 5DIII. I downloaded the D800 drummer.mov from the dpreview site. It starts out fine, but by the time I grade it to something I would use it is showing annoying moire. I don't see any of this, anywhere, in Philip's shots. Of course maybe it's because I own so much Canon glass, but the 5DIII is starting to look good.

I think the D800 rocks for doing large prints. (A friend of mine bought one and the full-sized photo he sent me is crazy sharp and detailed.) The 5D3 rocks for video. (The D800 line skips.)

As always, the best tool depends on the job at hand.

FWIW, my friend surprised me with one of his lens choices. He's selling or sold his Canon glass to get some nice Nikon lenses (including the 14-24; Yum), but he plans on getting the Sigma 85.

I know that Canon is weak at 85mm for video - the 85/1.8 is milky wide open and the focus throw is way too short for this focal length and the 85/1.2L has that funny fly by wire focus ring. But apparently the Nikon doesn't measure up either. Even the Zeiss 85 is a bit soft (but not too soft for great video portraits and interviews.)

Anyway, I think the Sigma is a nice choice for Canon cams and my friend thinks it's the way to go for Nikon too. Since I don't follow Nikon lenses closely, I was surprised.

I'm not sure what to make of this little snippet about Canon launching a 5D X at Photokina, but I don't think the Mark III is going to match the sales of the Mark II.

Struggling Camera Brand Canon Tipped To Launch Another 5D Mark III - Smarthouse (http://smarthouse.com.au/Digital_Photography/Industry/E4Q4S5M7)

Bah. The whole point of the 1D X was to bridge two separate models (the 1D Mk. IV and 1Ds Mk. III) into one.

Trust me, they're not about to do the exact opposite -- split one model into two -- with a "5D X."

And I'm willing to take serious bets on that claim... anybody?

Yes, I agree on that one Chris. Canon would be shooting themselves in the foot.

I know that Canon is weak at 85mm for video - the 85/1.8 is milky wide open and the focus throw is way too short for this focal length and the 85/1.2L has that funny fly by wire focus ring. But apparently the Nikon doesn't measure up either. Even the Zeiss 85 is a bit soft (but not too soft for great video portraits and interviews.)
Jon, have you tried the old Nikkor 85mm/f2 AIS? Ken Rockwell prefers it to the other 85mm apertures. And you can get one for a song. I'm tempted to buy a 105mm/f2 DC for portraits and video, but it's a bit of an excess on a Canon body (no AF, obviously).

I've picked up a Nikkor 50mm/f1.4 for $50 and even a 50mm/f2 for $5 at local thrift stores and pawn shops. Build quality and MF throw of these prime lenses is superb. And plenty sharp enough for video.

OK, sorry for hijacking the thread with a vintage lens chat!

The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 is a wonderful lens (both AF-D and older MF Ais versions). I would avoid the latest 'G' version if you are buying it mainly for video (due to lack of aperture ring). The f/2 version is also a good lens (not in the the same league or price of the 1.4 model), and although quite soft wide open, it improves dramatically at f/2.8 onwards.

The 105mm DC and 135mm DC are both superb and sharp lenses. A cheaper option is the 135mm f/1.8 Ais which is also a top performer.

My favourite of the bunch is the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4, although the best 85mm & 135mm lenses I've ever owned were the Pentax FA 85mm f/1.4 and the Pentax SMC-A 135mm f/1.4.

Wonderful info, Tony. Thanks so much!

I put together a 5D Mark 3 vs Mark2 in Daylight. ISO 100

Used Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 L, Canon 85mm 1.2, Rokinon 35mm 1.4

Canon 5D Mark 3 Low ISO Test vs Mark 2 - YouTube

It's really hard to see any difference between them other than a slight color tone difference.

You can tell the subtle differences in compression noise when you crop in at 100% as mentioned above.

I put together a 5D Mark 3 vs Mark2 in Daylight. ISO 100

John, what do you think about this relative to Philip Bloom's discussion of adding some sharpening in post? And what are the in-camera sharpeing values for the two cameras?

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.

Mk 2 & Mk 3 comparison Review:

5d Mark III Review - Lady Arm Wrestlers and Tahitian Dancer.mp4 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib-8xW-YAOY&feature=youtu.be)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for the responses guys.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

For stills, not only are there significant improvements in AF, but also in noise ISO between Mk II and Mk III. This may or may not be significant to you, but the low light of most wedding environments, I would suspect that it might be. My advice would be to spend ~$60/day and rent both bodies in a test environment that replicates what you typically shoot and make your judgement based upon that. Would be $ well-spent, IMHO.

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?Personally I think that the obvious choice if you shoot weddings is the 5D3. The extra 2+ stops of low light capability are a tremendous advantage for low light venues. Not having to worry about moire & aliasing is a relief but for wedding shoots while we may worry about it our customers probably don't care. I have very occasionally been caught out with the 12 minute limit so doubtless I will also very occasionally be caught out with the 30 minute limit but any limit is only of real importance if you are going to be leaving the camera locked off & unattended. If you have it in your hands you can keep an eye on the duration & stop/restart at a convenient moment.

The quality of stills is pretty much indistinguishable aside from the fact that the AF system is so vastly improved that there are far fewer out of focus shots.

For video, you can get the VAF-5D2 to "eliminate" aliasing on 5D2 video, but it has two big limitations: it doesn't work with ultrawides, and you have to install/remove it when going between photos and video. Since you are clearly into photos, I think the 5D3 is the better package. You get improved AF, lower noise, and "no" aliasing when going quickly from photos to video and with ultrawide lenses.

I don't think all this advice makes much difference. As in all walks of life, if you can afford it, get the best. Generally the very latest generations of any camera tends to have improvements on the previous models.

The Mark 3 upgrade is of course better than the Mark 2 in some areas, so it is the better choice if you have the money to buy the one/two/three bodies needed for your chosen line of work; although millions of professionals have used (and continue to use) the 5D Mk2 for a wide range of video/stills work, (including weddings and other social events along with music video's and EPK's) and are extremely happy with the results.

So, Maurice, after buying one or two 5D Mark III bodies, and you still have plenty of cash left over to purchase lenses and all the extra equipment required for photography & filming, then go ahead. If cash is short, then go for the previous model.

Try to not forget that many camera system items that fitted a previous model (in this case the Mk2) will not fit the later model (Mark 3), so always budget for the need to purchase these new items when, and if, you eventually decide to upgrade.

In my case, I needed to budget for extra battery grips, LCD finder loups, new underwater housings & glass ports, upgrade to 600 EX-RT Speedlite flash, new lenses etc., but did not have enough money for all those extras together with two separate new Mark 3 bodies.

So I remained with the Mark 2 system (and kept most of my original camera equipment & lenses), which enabled me to upgrade much-needed other system items such as another 5D Mk 2 body & Canon grip, an extra 500 EX II speedlight, 3 X extra Sony wireless mic units, two new extra lenses: EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L and AF 120-300mm f/2.8 HSM OS, a new Canon 2X Extender, some more UV, ND, and Polarising filters (77mm & 105mm), an extra tripod and another camera bag (Jeez, I've now got too many bags!).

Hey guys

Could someone tell me about the 2 video formats the Canon5d Mark iii offers?

I have the Canon 5D ii and heard about the 2 new formats the new model has and I was wondering how they compare and if I'll need more memory cards?

I am about to sell my old Canon 5Dii and get the new one but need to know what to order quickly!