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

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

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. :)

[John Kim]

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

[John Kim]

Originally Posted by Vladimir Druts

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.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

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

[John Kim]

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.

[Charles W. Hull]

Originally Posted by John Kim

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.

[Jon Fairhurst]

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.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

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

[Chris Hurd]

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?

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

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

[Brian Brown]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

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!

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

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.

[Brian Brown]

Wonderful info, Tony. Thanks so much!

[John Kim]

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.

[Charles W. Hull]

Originally Posted by John Kim

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?