Change to full frame better or same as crop

[Steve Bleasdale]

Five weddings left this season, and healthy orders for next year and am wondering weather to go full frame next year? I am looking at the 5d mark three x 2, or maybe someone can enlighten me with a top camcorder that does what a 5d would do. Anyone regret upgrading from the mark 2 to 3. Any difference? I could get three mark 2s for the 5d3. I did see someone talking about a sony nex camcorder with lens a while ago? Any good? My 60ds and hfg25s pana g6, all good but I'm wondering if the upgrade is worth it even though all is well. Just thinking to give me that top prestige image video quality? Steve

[Arthur Gannis]

Have you seen he specs on he Sony RX10 ?

No mirror, continuous autofocus in video mode
Backlit sensor
Ultrafast autofocus
Built in ND filter
Constant aperture 2.8 from wide to tele
Carl Zeiss lens
Image stabilization
Clickless aperture
Headphone and mic jack
Etc, etc, etc...

Just waiting for the reviews to confirm my decision to purchase two of them.
For the price of a 5D3 body you can get two of these babies.

[Adrian Tan]

Hey Steve, I haven't been keeping up with all the new cameras, especially the Sony ones. But I do think: (a) the difference between full frame and cropped is not worth factoring into your decision; the look is similar enough and the plusses of each balance the minuses; but (b) the lowlight improvement is worth factoring in, as well as recording time, slow motion capability, and dual card slots. I very much doubt that anyone who goes from Mk2 to Mk3 regrets it.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Originally Posted by Arthur Gannis

Have you seen he specs on he Sony RX10 ?

No mirror, continuous autofocus in video mode
Backlit sensor
Ultrafast autofocus
Built in ND filter
Constant aperture 2.8 from wide to tele
Carl Zeiss lens
Image stabilization
Clickless aperture
Headphone and mic jack
Etc, etc, etc...

Just waiting for the reviews to confirm my decision to purchase two of them.
For the price of a 5D3 body you can get two of these babies.

Cheers Arthur that looks decent, will look into that cam.. cheers mate

[Steve Bleasdale]

Originally Posted by Adrian Tan

Hey Steve, I haven't been keeping up with all the new cameras, especially the Sony ones. But I do think: (a) the difference between full frame and cropped is not worth factoring into your decision; the look is similar enough and the plusses of each balance the minuses; but (b) the lowlight improvement is worth factoring in, as well as recording time, slow motion capability, and dual card slots. I very much doubt that anyone who goes from Mk2 to Mk3 regrets it.

Cheers Adrian, this is the thing, lights are becoming lower at venues and I struggled the other week trying to use a 50mm 1.4 at 1.4 with iso 3200 and struggled with he 60d. As I see it the mark iii 5d would kill that yes? The double slot recording is very handy like I have on the hfg25s and has saved my bacon once. Mmmm decisions.

[Adrian Tan]

Mk3 is brilliant in low light!

One more thought: I've been using Mk2s for years, but the 12 minute recording time still stuffs me around. There's just no warning when it stops rolling, and it's too easy to lose track of the time and become engrossed in the image.

The Mk3 not only records for 30min, but it displays a big message on the screen when it stops recording.

[Noa Put]

You might want to check out Sony's new full frame, the a7r, much cheaper then the d5III and from what I read also has excellent low light performance but we still need to see more proof of that. That camera with the rx10 seems to be a very capable duo, it will be available next month so you have time to check out the first user videos and experiences that will appear.

[Arthur Gannis]

Also to mention is that the RX10 uses EVERY pixel for video on that sensor whereas the 5D'd drop off an entire line of pixels on adjacent lines so you are only using 1/2 of all them pixels on that sensor in video mode.
The circuitry( processor) can't keep up with all that info if all the pixels are used.So it dumps half of them.
The RX10 has a 30 minute file size limitation. Wish they would take that off.
The ONLY reason I am not jumping for the full frame A7 is that there is no lens at a constant aperture of 2.8 that has that 24-200 equiv.that the RX10 has. The RX10 will be a gamechanger if the lowlight capability is anywhere near as the A7. Think about it, no lens to change and it has great macro throughout the zoom range. I was waiting a long time for a camera like this to come along.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Wow thanks guys a real eye opener, cheers Adrian, Noa, Arthur

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Arthur Gannis

The ONLY reason I am not jumping for the full frame A7 is that there is no lens at a constant aperture of 2.8 that has that 24-200 equiv.that the RX10 has.

And if it would exist that would be much more expensive then the rx10, but the sensor on the rx10 is also a lot smaller then the a7r, it seems that constant and fast f2.8 zooms are much cheaper to manufacture on a camera with a small sensor. Olympus is also bringing out a similar product but even with a smaller body: Olympus Announces the New Stylus 1 Digital Camera with Constant f/2.8 Zoom Lens | BH inDepth, I bet we will see more of these type of camera's.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Mmm the A7r full frame and reviews are good or favourable... Low light is the key for me though so I will keep my eyes peeled at these reviews when they come out. The mark iii 5d does look decent though. Noa, how is your gh3 in low light?

[Noa Put]

Better then my 550d but don't expect miracles from it, I can shoot at 3200 iso with not much issue, 6400 iso I have also used more then once but then the noise shows but still less noticeable then 3200 iso on my 550d. I have moved away from Canon camera's and switched to a gh3 and a g6, the lumix lenses (I've got a 12-35mm f2.8 and 14mm f2.5 pancake) produce some very sharp and colorful images and I like it that the camerabody and lenses are so light and small. Must say the rx10 looks appealing to me too as I planned on getting a lumix 35-100mm f2.8 lens and the price is somewhat the same. If the rx10 screams "video" to me I"m not interested but if it's able to pull of some nice shallow dof shots combined with sharp images I might get it instead of the lumix lens, but I need to be absolutely sure it performs, especially in the low light area, I will be one of many looking out for the first videos to appear.

[Arthur Gannis]

Does that Oly Stylus 1 have mic in and headphone out jacks ??
Very important for weddings.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Cheers Noa, I to was seriously thinking gh3 with my g6, awesome little thing. the 6ods are great but annoy me with the focus and I presume the gh3 like the g6 takes care of at least most focusing situations.. Will hold my decision till January then se what the sonys are like , cheers mate...

[Robert Benda]

The Mark II's 12 minute limit is easily worked around, either by personal discipline, or, more likely, Magic Lantern. We haven't had a single problem with it since we started.

My personal experience is with Canon's T3i/600D, 70D, and Mark 2. We love the Mark 2 for the better low light performance over the crop factors (about 2 stops); PLUS less noise at 3200. Even 6400 is usable.

HOWEVER, I really like the 70D both for the crop factor at ceremonies (I like a nice, tight shot of B&G during vows), and the live auto focus for every other part of the day (when lighting cooperates).

And for us, as relative newbies, the price points work great to be able to have 3 or 4 cameras, since each (70D and Mark 2) run us about $1200 each.