The video appears to have been removed. Can someone summarize the results?

From memory, basically, no advantage of removing the OLPF that you can't get EASILY with a little post-sharpening a mint 5DMkIII (with the sharpening setting at 0 in camera).

I stress there was no side-by-side comparisons in that particular video (i.e. with and without OLPF), I'm just comparing the chart to one posted by another guy, Jason, a while ago on Vimeo and YouTube of an untouched 5DMkIII. Both were CAPABLE of getting close to around 900 line resolution, maybe a little less, it seemed to me depending on the methods used (no OLPF footage or post-sharpening of footage taken with a native 5DMkIII).

It is worth noting that the guy, Bill, that posted the Vimeo video I linked to above had BOTH filters removed, not just the OLPF. Details were posted on that now removed video page. James Miller and Andrew Reid only removed the OLPF but left the second one in place (which I understand - from my reading - is actually epoxed to the sensor). What difference this makes I would not like to guess at. Time and evidence will clarify. It is still early days, and we don't have all the facts yet, but it seems the potential issues that come with removing the OLPF (IR contamination/colour tint, disabling the dust cleaning system on the sensor, voiding the warranty, not to mention cost - if you get a third party to do it, or risk of damage if you DIY) probably does not justify the benefit. Others may disagree but that's my take right now!

I don't have a 5DMkIII (yet) but sharpening my typical footage in CS5.5 is very, very fast and, of course, can be done on a shot-by-shot basis to the degree needed/wanted (along with any other picture adjustments).

From what I've seen so far (from the brave people that have tried this surgery), OLPF removal is not a route I'll be taking personally if and when I do get my 5DMkIII (or will it be a Black Magic, FS700...or C300...depends how rich I feel when I need to push the button).

I have no interest in the OLPF removal anymore. After shooting with my camera for a while now, I am very pleased with what I have. I am absolutely loving the images I am getting from this thing. I also just got a Okii USB focus puller which works very well. It lets you program focus points and rack between the two at the push of a button. Very useful for certain shots.

My first day playing around with it I shot a simple short to put it through it's paces. It pulled focus like a champ. Worth checking out IMO.

Kind of goofy, but here is the short I did while testing out the Okii. Coca Cola Wars on Vimeo

I am following both the Canon & the Nikon but one thing is a huge stop for me, the Nikon glass turns its focus wheel in the opposite direction than the video world. After years of "video camera" use, I do not want to mess with my muscle memory to operate the D800.

Any way around this? Third party lenses instead of Nikon?

That's certainly an issue. There are 3rd party lenses, but if I'm not mistaken, the Nikon mount versions often turn their focus rings the same way as Nikon. And because of the large flange distance, you're pretty much limited to a Nikon mount.

A reverse crank follow focus is about the only solution I can think of.

Thanks for your reply Jon. Follow Focus seems to be the best option. I am keeping my eye on both of these cameras.

Here's another comparison of the two cameras. Have to say it's the most thorough, and well done, video I've seen so far regarding video performance of the two cameras:

Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 Comparison (http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800/)

That's very well done, thanks for the link.

I agree with Matt, and think that Dave's comparison of the two cameras is the best I've seen. Plenty of interesting facts and very informative.

Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 Comparison - YouTube

Okay so I've read some of the postings within this thread and I have to say that I am not overly impressed with what I have seen from the Nikon D800 or the D4. Given some of the comments regarding the moire, I would be very interested in seeing so footage from the D800E. I've not seen any at all. That being said, Nikon beats Canon flat out when shooting stills. On the other side, I believe that Canon has once again developed a camera that blows the Nikon away. I have tried to post a video from Canon made by someone like the readers of this post or me. If out there, somebody please show me some Nikon footage that is better. I would hate to have to buy two bodies.

Canon 5D Mark III - Copelandia on Vimeo

The (just released) Philip Bloom comparison tests are well worth watching. A good point made in his video (shot with a Canon C300) is that the main problem with the 5D Mark III (softness) can easily be fixed in Premiere Pro, unlike the problems with video from the D4 and D800.

I now have a 5D Mark III on order, which will be used mostly for stills but also for video.

Richard,

Are the still from the Canon as sharp as the Nikon or do I need to hold on to my Nikon lenses? Also, what do I use to mount the Nikon lenses to the Canon Cameras?

Nikon lenses will mount on to any Canon EOS DSLR bodies using a simple adapter (with loss of AF of course).

To be honest, Maurice, I did not see anything in the Luke Neumann' Copelandia clip that couldn't have been filmed using either the Mark III, Mark II or D800...and I doubt if anybody would be able to spot a difference.

Regarding sharpness of "Stills from the Canon or Nikon" ... I have no doubts that you would not be able to tell the difference between either when matched with similar performance optics. After all, combined with correct technique, it is the lenses bayoneted onto the bodies that are the important factor in producing sharpness for stills images.

I have worked with Canon and Nikkor lenses for decades, and the top tier of both brands are equal in quality. I definitely would not 'jump ship' from either brand through any differences in sharpness.

The Nikon D800 is slightly better than the Canon 5D Mark III for stills images when making huge enlargements, but only in extreme cases. In most photography subjects at normal enlargements (calendars, double-page magazine reproduction, coffee-table size books etc), the Mark III and Mark II will produce images that match the D800.

On the video side of the equation, I too agree that the Mark III is a better body for some subjects, especially extreme low light, but the Nikon is slightly better for showing dynamic range and detail in the shadows. Both are slightly better that the older Mark II for video, but only in extreme cases.

All my lenses are Canon, but Nikon lenses are very good. Some still photographers use the Nikon 14-24 zoom on Canon 5D bodies instead of the Canon 16-36 f/2.8L II. The focus ring direction is an issue for me. For solely nature still photography, the D800 or the D800E would be terrific, particularly if you did not own a lot of Canon lenses.

On the video side of the equation, I too agree that the Mark III is a better body for some subjects, especially extreme low light, but the Nikon is slightly better for showing dynamic range and detail in the shadows. Both are slightly better that the older Mark II for video, but only in extreme cases.The 5D3 e.g. is pretty much moire & aliasing free compared to the 5D2 whereas the D800 is no better. The extra 2+ stops of noise free low light performance is another major advantage of the 5D3.

I've got the VAF-5D2 anti-aliasing filter, and it does the trick. I hear that there will be 7D and D800 versions as well.

That said, I'd prefer the 5D3. Mounting and removing the VAF is a real pain when going between photos and video. And it doesn't work well beyond about 28mm.

The audience will love the video images with the VAF. If you like wide lenses and photos and alias free video, the VAF can be a worthwhile pain.

With the 5D3, you get the results without the hassle.

For me the deal killer is the Canon's lack of clean 1080 output for external monitoring & recording.

Jacques:

Each of us has to " pick our poison". To get the clean HDMI out, your poison will be the moire / alias issues that will be difficult to deal with in post, and the low -light performance of the D800.

The "poison" I pick is related to the 5D Mark III.

Neither approach is good or bad, just different.

Blessings on you.

True that Richard - really neither camera is heads above the other - and neither are what I want.
If the MKIII had clean HDSDI 1080P@24 out on it, I would buy one.
I would never want to trust the small built in LCD of any camera for movie making.
It is just too easy to miss something and come to find the footage is unacceptable later.

I plan on using whatever camera to shoot my own script, so if I went with the D800, I can plan and test to avoid the D800's moire and aliasing issues. I can light for it too. The D800 also does better with shadow detail from what I've seen, and that is a big plus for cine style shooting. But, I'll say it again, from every shoot I do, having the ability to monitor on an external monitor is crucial, not only for me, but for everyone else on the crew too.

I might be wrong, but I think this clean HDMI out issue could be fixed with new firmware.
I urge Canon to do so.

True that Richard - really neither camera is heads above the other - and neither are what I want.
If the MKIII had clean HDSDI 1080P@24 out on it, I would buy one.
I would never want to trust the small built in LCD of any camera for movie making.
It is just too easy to miss something and come to find the footage is unacceptable later.

I plan on using whatever camera to shoot my own script, so if I went with the D800, I can plan and test to avoid the D800's moire and aliasing issues. I can light for it too. The D800 also does better with shadow detail from what I've seen, and that is a big plus for cine style shooting. But, I'll say it again, from every shoot I do, having the ability to monitor on an external monitor is crucial, not only for me, but for everyone else on the crew too.

I might be wrong, but I think this clean HDMI out issue could be fixed with new firmware.
I urge Canon to do so.

On Canon you can get a info away from the screen except the red dot during recording, so it is no problem what so ever to monitor you recording on a external screen (and it stay in HD during recording if you didn't know that). But for external recording, you get the red dot, that can be fix in firmware (1Dc got clean out). But maybe Canon don't want to give is that...

I actually believe that there are significant differences between the D800 and the 5D Mark III after watching Phillip Bloom's comparison between the two. The D800 has some serious fall off in terms of image quality in comparison to the 5D Mark III. Its not even close. The Nikon actually is a much cleaner image quality when shooting out doors. I just think that one's choice of camera will depend on what you're shooting and what type of lighting you have. The Moire from the D800 is not as bad as other cameras but this is subjective. If I had my choice of one overall camera, it would undoubtedly be the Canon but, if money was no object, I would pass on the Canon and purchase the D4 for any low light shots (the low light capabilities of this camera are in matched) and the D800 for everything else. I'm not as professional as most on this site but is bet after testing the cameras, some of you guys would agree. By the way having clean HD out on the D800 is great but the cost of the equipment to recieve this data is a hughe expense. I guess you cant put a price on quality and with that being said, it sos the two Nikons for me.

On Canon you can get a info away from the screen except the red dot during recording, so it is no problem what so ever to monitor you recording on a external screen (and it stay in HD during recording if you didn't know that). But for external recording, you get the red dot, that can be fix in firmware (1Dc got clean out). But maybe Canon don't want to give is that...

So the 5KMKIII outputs a full quality 1080P (Psf?) @ 24 digital stream with the only 'on screen junk' being a red dot?
And somewhere there is a (hack?) firmware update that removes it without any other issues?

Can it also record to the flash card AND HDMI output at full res?

Please let me know as this is new and valuable info if true.

Thanks!

So the 5KMKIII outputs a full quality 1080P (Psf?) @ 24 digital stream with the only 'on screen junk' being a red dot?
And somewhere there is a (hack?) firmware update that removes it without any other issues?

Can it also record to the flash card AND HDMI output at full res?

Please let me know as this is new and valuable info if true.

Thanks!

Well, I didn't say that it is an update firmware out that fix the red dot on the 5DIII, but the 1Dc will have clean HD out. So Canon can give us that too for 5DIII... And what I know 7D, 1DIV and 5DIII will stay in HD during recording.

A much better test here Canon 5D Mark II vs. Mark III vs. Nikon D800 - Candlelight Revisited on Vimeo I applaud the tester who went back and did some comparison between the two in low light. The biggest gripe was that the Iso setting between the cameras are completely different. At same ISO the Nikon is clearly at least 2/3 stop brighter (I the latest test I would say 1 stop) than the Canon 5d. So you have to compare Nikon ISO 1600 to Canon 2500 to 3200. The second thing is dynamic range, you can clearly see much more in the shadows than the Canon which crushes the shadows and thus hides more of the noise.

The last thing is detail. The D800 has much better resolution than the 5d3 which look out of focus when you put it side by side. So if you trade off a little of this rez with noise reduction like he did in the last part with neat image you get much closer to the 5d3. Some would say that the ISO 5000 d800 test at 200% is still brighter (I think he should have use a 3200 to 4000 ISO sample) and more resolute that the 5d3 at 6400 (In the 200% test).

So in the end they are much closer than what you would think because many so called test as above just assume things like the ISO rating are the same from each manufacturer while they are so far from it. So now the d800 is getting the reputation that it is not a great low light camera because Canon as overestimated its ISO by nearly a good stop and use much more aggressive in camera NR.

Another thing to consider is the mosaic filter being design for D800. You can see a first preview that seem quite encouraging here http://fennworld.blogspot.co.uk/. If it is as good as it seems, with an external recorder the D800 would become a very very good video camera.

I have the VAF filter for the 5D2. Works great! But the 5D3 would be a much more practical solution. The downsides of the VAF filters are: 1) a pain if you go between photos and video, 2) they don't support ultra-wides, and 3) they ain't cheap. That said, I got one before the 5D3 was announced and it keeps the 5D2 quite viable.

Regarding the first point, I'm paranoid about changing lenses and do it really quickly. However, you can't remove/replace the VAF quickly. The sensor (and filter for that matter) are exposed for quite some time. This isn't an issue if you do video only, but could be an issue for still/video types.

I'm not dissing the product; however, one should be aware of what they are getting into. The 5D3 wins when it comes to simplicity, usability, and the ability to shoot really wide.