When shooting for HD final output, how high of an ISO do you comfortably go on the 5D3 and the 6D? Now in a situation where you could really use the shot and it is dark, are you willing to go higher for that one moment?

For my 6D, I went all the way to 12800

Canon 6D Low Light at ISO 12800 on Vimeo

Now in a situation where you could really use the shot and it is dark, are you willing to go higher for that one moment?

Why would you not if you need the shot? I"d crank it up as high as needed and if necessary use neatvideo or else just use a light on camera, Taky's video is a good example where just a tiny bit of light (using a videolight with a dimmer) on camera would have made much difference. Very high iso is not always a substitute for real light.

I went as high as maximum on my 6D. I wouldn't try that with a crop sensor camera though.

My video has no camera light attached to the camera, it was just dark. And even at I so 12800, it delivers completely usable footage.

Also it has nothing to do with cropped sensor or full frame. It's just the camera was built in a way with better high ISO noise reduction.

My video has no camera light attached to the camera, it was just dark. And even at I so 12800, it delivers completely usable footage.

Also it has nothing to do with cropped sensor or full frame. It's just the camera was built in a way with better high ISO noise reduction.

Full frame plays a big part, why is it that every full frame camera have less noise than apsc sensor? Because more light is hitting the sensor.

I respectfully disagree. You are right in general the advantage of full frame over cropped sensor. However 5d3 and 6d has superior high ISO performance because it was built in to the camera noise reduction engine. 5D mark 2 is full frame but it can't deliver clean usable high ISO footage after ISO 2400 IMO. Nowhere near what 5D3 and 6D capable of in low light.

the newer canon 70D is cropped sensor DSLR. Its high iso Performance has greatly improved compared to 60D or 7D.

My video has no camera light attached to the camera, it was just dark.
I know that because it was very obvious there was no light on the camera, that's why I said just a little bit of extra light would have made a big difference in such a situation. Even at 12800 iso some of those shots seem way too dark to me.

I respectfully disagree. You are right in general the advantage of full frame over cropped sensor. However 5d3 and 6d has superior high ISO performance because it was built in to the camera noise reduction engine. 5D mark 2 is full frame but it can't deliver clean usable high ISO footage after ISO 2400 IMO. Nowhere near what 5D3 and 6D capable of in low light.

the newer canon 70D is cropped sensor DSLR. Its high iso Performance has greatly improved compared to 60D or 7D.

ISO performance of 70D compare to 60d is no use because they're both crop sensor.

My question to you is do you think 70D have a better ISO performance than 6D and 5D mark 3?

Because your original comment said that Full Frame has NOTHING to do with high ISO performance.

Also these reputable source also agree with me : Full Frame vs Crop Frame Sensors | Everything You Need to Know (http://www.slrlounge.com/school/cropped-sensor-vs-full-frame-sensor-tips-in-2)

Full Frame or Crop? Is Crop Good Enough? (http://www.digitalrev.com/article/full-frame-or-crop-is/ODAyNjI2MQ_A_A)

Taky, why didn't you just use one of the Comer lights you sell?

Full frame of course do better than cropped sensor. That's why I said I agreed with you on that in a general sense, but the fact 6D and 5D3 high ISO performance is superior is not because it is full frame. Just compare between 5D2 and 5D3. Both are full frame but the high ISO performance between them is day and night.

Same argument between 70D and 60D. Both are cropped sensor. 70D a newer camera has better ISO performance than the 60D. Thus the low light capability here has nothing to do with being cropped or full frame. Its the camera internal noise removal capability.

Back to your point where full frame vs cropped sensor low light, yes I agree with you. But the difference is not that extreme as we are talking about 1600 on 60D to 12800 on 6D.

Taky, why didn't you just use one of the Comer lights you sell?

I know. It was a location where the dance floor is another room from the reception. I have my lights mounted on light a stand in the reception room. After finishing the same day edit, I was so tired to move them to another location. Our coverage time was already over so I just shoot some dancing scenes for fun to test the 6D. I think that was my first time I use 6D, last year in Marxh,.

ISO performance of 70D compare to 60d is no use because they're both crop sensor.

My question to you is do you think 70D have a better ISO performance than 6D and 5D mark 3?

Because your original comment said that Full Frame has NOTHING to do with high ISO performance.

Also these reputable source also agree with me : Full Frame vs Crop Frame Sensors | Everything You Need to Know (http://www.slrlounge.com/school/cropped-sensor-vs-full-frame-sensor-tips-in-2)

Full Frame or Crop? Is Crop Good Enough? (http://www.digitalrev.com/article/full-frame-or-crop-is/ODAyNjI2MQ_A_A)
You've hit on a sore spot with me. PLEASE people, don't take everything you read on the internet as the full truth. This site included.

Crowdsourcing your education gets one knowledgable about "what everybody knows".

The truth about sensor size and noise artifacts at high ISO is much more complex than "full-frame sensors have better low-light / high-ISO performance."
...the fact 6D and 5D3 high ISO performance is superior is not because it is full frame. Just compare between 5D2 and 5D3. Both are full frame but the high ISO performance between them is day and night.

Same argument between 70D and 60D. Both are cropped sensor. 70D a newer camera has better ISO performance than the 60D. Thus the low light capability here has nothing to do with being cropped or full frame. Its the camera internal noise removal capability. ...
I'm with Taky on this, and here's more:

The 5D mark 2 is a 21 megapixel sensor
The mark 3 is a 22 megapixel sensor

If you're going to cram more photosites onto a sensor, each will be smaller.

Being smaller, each photosite has less light striking it.. That's right, so far the mark 3 has WORSE low light gathering, but the story is far from over.

The new image processing and general improvements in sensor technology more than overcome the reduced light per photosite challenge. The image processing grows by leaps and bounds from camera model to new cam model from the leading manufacturers. This is where the real magic is happening, in the processing.

It's in the image processing where noise reduction is taking place. On Canons you even have (advanced) menu selections as to the degree of noise processing for stills.

So why isn't the 70D, Canon's latest greatest crop sensor camera as good as the 5Dm3 in low light? Product marketing decisions by Canon. The 70D gets Canon's latest greatest autofocus technology, that's what they think consumers will value highly. The 5dm3 gets the big upgrade in video image processing, that's what they think pros will value highly.

So, while "yes", the crop-sensor cams have generally poorer low-light performance than the full-frames, it's not because of the sensor. It's the marketing decisions that affect how the product lines are differentiated so as to get pros stepping up to the "pro" full-frame cameras.

This may seem like a tedious argument about minutia, but it actually gets pretty important to be clear about this.

Big example: Panasonic is about to ship their apparently stunning new GH4. But darn it, not only is it a crop sensor, it's even smaller than canon's at a 2x crop factor! Must have terrible low-light performance, right? WRONG!!! Through the GH1, 2, and 3, Panasonic has optimized the video performance of their image processing, and has better low-light performance than crowdsourced knowledge about sensor size would suggest.

That "everybody knows crop-sensor cameras have poorer low-light performance" is one of the things that keep recognition of Panny's GH cams low. But it will be interesting to see how the $1700 GH4 compares to the $3500 5Dm3.

Don't get me started on depth-of-focus and the pursuit of filmic imagery...

Thanks Seth. I guess I accepted Canon's marketing as a fact.

So email me your thought on "depth-of-focus and the pursuit of filmic imagery" to VictorNNguyen12@gmail.com

:)

I kind of wanted to hear those thoughts too.

Don't get me started on depth-of-focus and the pursuit of filmic imagery...

Ha ha. I wish people would just realize that it is being allowed the technical option of choosing creatively how deep or shallow the field of focus is, that is the real benefit of DSLRs, FF in particular.
I love being able to choose, to be far less controlled by the limitations of the camera/lens.
Who wants to use a tiny sensor at telephoto in an interview to isolate the subject visually, setting up the camera in a different timezone, destroying any sense of connection and intimacy? Much easier to just change the aperture, or dial it in precisely to include/exclude the background to taste.

Suddenly I find myself tempted to become a ranting radio talk-show host. If two people like my rant, imagine what it must feel like to be listened to by thousands!
Ha ha. I wish people would just realize that it is being allowed the technical option of choosing creatively how deep or shallow the field of focus is, that is the real benefit of DSLRs, FF in particular.
I love being able to choose,...
IMO...

Brian has it about right. For the money you get lots of choice about depth of focus with dSLRs.

Of course there are those internet-educated that think "filmic" means shallow DoF all the time, and the shallower the better. Following this logic, of course they want full-frame, because you can get even shallower.

Myth: Full-frame gives you as much shallow DoF as 35mm film. That's wrong, Full-frame gives you more available shallow DoF than 35mm film.

Why? Go back to 35mm stills ("135" film in a cassette). The film advances through the camera from left to right, with a 3:2 aspect ratio, there's about 24mm of image height available between the sprocket holes, and the image is about 36mm wide. There's your 3:2.

However, in a 35 motion picture camera the film runs from top to bottom, so the available image width between sprocket holes is 24mm... but there have been many standards on how to use the real estate. For example the "Academy Ratio" of 1.375:1 used only 22mm of width, leaving 2-ish mm for an optical sound track. Super-35 squeezed every last bit between the sprocket holes at about 24.8mm of image width.

What dSLR sensor most closely matches the available DoF of 35mm motion pictures? The Canon APS-C sensor with the 1.6x crop, found on the 7D, 70D, etc. at 22mm wide, an exact match for Academy Ratio 35mm motion picture images and real close to Super-35.

**************************************************************************
My next rant would be about 24fps being more filmic than 30fps. 24p video does not look like 24fps film.

Why throw away (temporal) resolution to have inferior representation of motion that is mis-timed against the screen refresh standards?
**************************************************************************
It isn't the frame rate or DoF that will make our video look most filmic. I love the creamy look of large sensors these days, even though it's different than film.

What makes our work look most filmic is lighting, latitude, and exposure. Nothing says "cheap video" like overexposed highlights, noisy darks, and random middle tones.

What makes our work look filmic is deliberate design of all aspects of the image, to include highs, mid-tones and darks. Then there's composition, how we apply the conventional visual language in camera support, shots, and editing, clean sound that is direct... all this is craft that any videographer with cinematography aspirations should understand and use.

Agreed. I shoot 30p as I dislike the way motion looks in 24p in video.
I was just reading specifically about canon DSLRs and how it is their color science that helps makes their dslr video look really filmic, in particular the skin tones. I often combine footage from canon DSLRs and canon xa10, and it is really the skin tones that I have the hardest time matching. The videocamera seems so much more flat and lifeless, while DSLRs are natural, beautiful skin tones.