Rule #1: Don't use canon DSLRs for video; brand is good for still photos but unless you go with a C100 or something they have nasty tricks like upscaling and generally too soft footage. 5D iii is sort of okay I guess. Panasonic GH4 and the Sony FS700 are amazing and cheaper with more options geared towards video applications. Also I heard those new Sony DSLRs give decent video.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;49251867]Rule #1: Don't use canon DSLRs for video; brand is good for still photos but unless you go with a C100 or something they have nasty tricks like upscaling and generally too soft footage. 5D iii is sort of okay I guess. Panasonic GH4 and the Sony FS700 are amazing and cheaper with more options geared towards video applications. Also I heard those new Sony DSLRs give decent video.[/QUOTE]
Or just don't get a shit Canon DSLR if you want to take good video. The entire Season 6 finale of House MD was filmed on a Canon EOS 5D Mk II
[url]http://petapixel.com/2010/04/09/house-season-finale-filmed-entirely-with-canon-5d-mark-ii/[/url]
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;49252239]Or just don't get a shit Canon DSLR if you want to take good video. The entire Season 6 finale of House MD was filmed on a Canon EOS 5D Mk II
[url]http://petapixel.com/2010/04/09/house-season-finale-filmed-entirely-with-canon-5d-mark-ii/[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah and the 5D mkii up-scales from 720p to 1080p
That was 6 years ago, canon has not really surpassed the 5D iii, which does shoot 1080p. (This is excluding the C series and whatnot)
I was part of a production house that had a canon 7D (shit) 5Dii (shit) 5Diii (okay) GH4 (good) and C300 (great).
Don't get me wrong, you can get good images from any camera if you have the right eye, but the canon stuff is wayyy overpriced for what you get, which in the case of DSLR video, is inferior to competitors.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;49252414]Yeah and the 5D mkii up-scales from 720p to 1080p
That was 6 years ago, canon has not really surpassed the 5D iii, which does shoot 1080p. (This is excluding the C series and whatnot)
I was part of a production house that had a canon 7D (shit) 5Dii (shit) 5Diii (okay) GH4 (good) and C300 (great).
Don't get me wrong, you can get good images from any camera if you have the right eye, but the canon stuff is wayyy overpriced for what you get, which in the case of DSLR video, is inferior to competitors.[/QUOTE]
Source on the upscaling? Never heard anything about this and can't find anything on google
[QUOTE=smurfy;49258962]Source on the upscaling? Never heard anything about this and can't find anything on google[/QUOTE]
I'd imagine first-hand experience has a little more credibility than a failed google search.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49259290]I'd imagine first-hand experience has a little more credibility than a failed google search.[/QUOTE]
Not really, no, because anyone can say anything, but if a whole bunch of people are reporting the same issue, then it's probably legit.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49259290]I'd imagine first-hand experience has a little more credibility than a failed google search.[/QUOTE]
I'd say that a record of an event has way more credibility than anecdotal evidence.
This is really useful, I just got a Canon EOS Rebel T5i (with an 18-135mm lens) after using it in school and I love the camera. Before, I was using a Canon VIXIA, aka babby's first camera. All of the tripod and microphone stuff from that camera are compatible with the Rebel, though I'll be looking for a separate audio recording device. Sure it's not the best but for a student who won't use it for much beyond projects or fucking around it works great.
[QUOTE=smurfy;49258962]Source on the upscaling? Never heard anything about this and can't find anything on google[/QUOTE]
He's poorly referring to the crop factor since the MK II uses a 2/3 CMOS sensor and isn't full frame. It's essentially the same effect, you don't get your full frame - a 40mm lens on a 2/3 sensor looks more like 70mm - along with sensor size.
[editline]6th December 2015[/editline]
Canon's 5D and 7D line are great but their Rebel EOS line is awful. Shit optics and sensors and my T4i actually just bit the dust today. Oh well, 5D MKIII here I come.
Sony A7s all the way yo, can't beat that low light. Couple that shit with an atmos ninja assassin you kicking out 10 bit log footage that grades like a beauty awww yiss
It's true, all Canon DSLRs are upscaled. Given their larger sensor it's not as obvious and they still produce a very nice image. Also you probably shouldn't even care about it if you're watching this video.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=MelonGuy;49260820]Sony A7s all the way yo, can't beat that low light. Couple that shit with an atmos ninja assassin you kicking out 10 bit log footage that grades like a beauty awww yiss[/QUOTE]
A7s can't 10bit.
Stop making me regret buying a canon rebel t5 :suicide:
[QUOTE=PHrag;49261673]It's true, all Canon DSLRs are upscaled. Given their larger sensor it's not as obvious and they still produce a very nice image. Also you probably shouldn't even care about it if you're watching this video.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
A7s can't 10bit.[/QUOTE]
You are right, I actually use a GH4 but my bro has an A7s which I haven't used properly.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
still shoots log though
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
and crazy cool low light
A7s is superior for low-light performance but it's shit for photography. I use Canon DSLRs since I do a ton of videography and photography and would rather not have dedicated cameras for each.
I shot one of my last short films on an A7s and the image quality is beautiful with the right setup. Here it is.
[video=vimeo;118309723]https://vimeo.com/118309723[/video]
I filmed an entire 15 minute segment about a noodle festival on a Nikon D3300 at 1080p recently. As long as you use a tripod and a good lens, most cheap DSLRs can do pretty solid video, even in lower-light settings.
It's when you get into movement that things like autofocus, rolling shutter, and the like become issues.
The cold hard fact is that the Mark iii is $2500
The Gh4 is ONE THOUSAND dollars cheaper
And the only thing the Gh4 does not have that the Mkiii does is a full frame sensor, which in my opinion, (with a speedbooster) is not a good enough trade-off for lacking things like 4k (which you can downscale for really nice images or use it for better editing in post) and all the cinematography-friendly features and flexibility of the platform. This also includes simple things like longer battery life and smaller form factor because it's newer.
Really sometimes I feel like Canons are like the Apple of DSLR video; people don't really know what is really under the hood so they go with something that is way overpriced.
So what I am saying is the really, the 5Diii is the ONLY decent Canon DSLR for video, and even then it's so much more expensive than a Gh4 and A7.
I have put hundreds if not thousands of hours in to all these different cameras for my career and really I'm just trying to raise awareness to people starting out doing DSLR video because you can use that money for things that do make a HUGE difference, like lenses and lighting and sound equipment.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;49263402]The cold hard fact is that the Mark iii is $2500
The Gh4 is ONE THOUSAND dollars cheaper
And the only thing the Gh4 does not have that the Mkiii does is a full frame sensor, which in my opinion, (with a speedbooster) is not a good enough trade-off for lacking things like 4k (which you can downscale for really nice images or use it for better editing in post) and all the cinematography-friendly features and flexibility of the platform. This also includes simple things like longer battery life and smaller form factor because it's newer.
[B]Really sometimes I feel like Canons are like the Apple of DSLR video; people don't really know what is really under the hood so they go with something that is way overpriced.[/B]
So what I am saying is the really, the 5Diii is the ONLY decent Canon DSLR for video, and even then it's so much more expensive than a Gh4 and A7.
I have put hundreds if not thousands of hours in to all these different cameras for my career and really I'm just trying to raise awareness to people starting out doing DSLR video because you can use that money for things that do make a HUGE difference, like lenses and lighting and sound equipment.[/QUOTE]
Eh, that's subjective. Canon is very much falling behind in the video department of their DSL and DSLRs, but their photography capabilities are still very much top of the line.
I've shot with the GH4 and there's honestly nothing that really grabs me about the camera. I trust Canon as a brand more than Panasonic.
Oh hey, I drunkenly posted a five paragraph comment about my disdain for amateur filmmakers to this video the other day! :v:
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
Also I've used a lot of cameras, and I gotta say stray away from Canons if you can (until you get to the higher range cine cameras). Their sensors tend to crush highlights and lean towards the orange side, which gives your footage a really cheap look if you're not careful. I've found Panasonic cameras in that price range to handle highlights better, and of course the Blackmagic Pocket Cam does it best in that range but it's not worth all the other bullshit you have to deal with with that camera.
Either way it's no good to obsess over technology. As long as you have decent control over the aperture and the exposure, you can still make great, meaningful images. Composition for example is much more important than the sharpness of your image, or even the resolution or dynamic range. If you're looking for a camera, shop for versatility, not image quality. Having the ability to shoot the shots you want to shoot under any circumstances is better than being able to shoot "the perfect shot" under very specific circumstances IMO.
Yeah the 5D MKIII won't give true 1080p, only a GH4,FS700 and c100 will do that.
[video=youtube;x1MDLcseF1E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1MDLcseF1E&noredirect=1[/video]
[QUOTE=Stinky;49260648]I'd say that a record of an event has way more credibility than anecdotal evidence.[/QUOTE]
The point is just because you can't find the information you are being given with a quick google search doesn't neccesarilly mean the information isn't true
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;49264479]Yeah the 5D MKIII won't give true 1080p, only a GH4,FS700 and c100 will do that.[/QUOTE]
Somehow I'm still doubtful of this.
Are there any official specs anywhere that speak of this?
I know it's somewhat blurry in H.264 1080p mode, but I don't think this is because it's not in 1080p, but rather due to some other factor like processing of the captured data.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1E-AkK3Qv0[/media]
It looks pretty damn sharp in 1080p when filming in 14-bit RAW, which leads me to believe it has to do with the processing of the H.264 file.
[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;49263430]Eh, that's subjective. Canon is very much falling behind in the video department of their DSL and DSLRs, but their photography capabilities are still very much top of the line.
I've shot with the GH4 and there's honestly nothing that really grabs me about the camera. I trust Canon as a brand more than Panasonic.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you when you factor in the camera's still photo quality. 5diii truly gives amazing stills.
It's sort of like this;
Gh4 is a video camera that can take stills
5Diii is a still camera that can take video
both in the dslr format
[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;49260790]He's poorly referring to the crop factor since the MK II uses a 2/3 CMOS sensor and isn't full frame.[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about the 5D or the 7D? The 5D MKII has a full frame 35mm CMOS, but the 7D MKII has an APS-C (1.6x Crop)
Also if we're talking sharpness for DSLR's you also have to consider [B]lenses, not just sensors.[/B] There's a significant difference between filming on a prime (I shoot strictly on my 50mm 1.4) and the shit zoom lenses like the 18-55 or the 16-135 that come in the amateur starter kits.
[QUOTE=GameDev;49266562]Are you talking about the 5D or the 7D? The 5D MKII has a full frame 35mm CMOS, but the 7D MKII has an APS-C (1.6x Crop)
Also if we're talking sharpness for DSLR's you also have to consider [B]lenses, not just sensors.[/B] There's a significant difference between filming on a prime (I shoot strictly on my 50mm 1.4) and the shit zoom lenses like the 18-55 or the 16-135 that come in the amateur starter kits.[/QUOTE]
Was talking about the 7D, My bad. Also Wasn't referring to the lenses. Some zoom lenses also aren't half bad. Canon's EF zoom lenses are pretty snazzy.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glitchman;49266358]I agree with you when you factor in the camera's still photo quality. 5diii truly gives amazing stills.
It's sort of like this;
Gh4 is a video camera that can take stills
5Diii is a still camera that can take video
both in the dslr format[/QUOTE]
The GH4 isn't a DSLR because there's no mirror reflex.
[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;49267010]Also Wasn't referring to the lenses. Some zoom lenses also aren't half bad. Canon's EF zoom lenses are pretty snazzy.[/QUOTE]
Was just a generalization, didn't meant to direct that at you.
And yeah, was mostly referring to the lower end stuff in the price range where I don't have to whack off two CEO's in a dive bar bathroom in order to pay the bills. I'd kill for a 16-35 or an 8-15.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49266340]Somehow I'm still doubtful of this.
Are there any official specs anywhere that speak of this?
I know it's somewhat blurry in H.264 1080p mode, but I don't think this is because it's not in 1080p, but rather due to some other factor like processing of the captured data.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1E-AkK3Qv0[/media]
It looks pretty damn sharp in 1080p when filming in 14-bit RAW, which leads me to believe it has to do with the processing of the H.264 file.[/QUOTE]In theory it should be able to do decent 1080p given the pixel could. Canon could have just gimped the firmware so people would buy the C100. But I am noticing some aliasing on the arm of that chair.
[editline]8th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;49267010]Was talking about the 7D, My bad. Also Wasn't referring to the lenses. Some zoom lenses also aren't half bad. Canon's EF zoom lenses are pretty snazzy.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
The GH4 isn't a DSLR because there's no mirror reflex.[/QUOTE]
DSLM if you want to be technical.
why can't there be a 400 dollar 1080p or 4K video camera that has great quality and range to use, not a go pro.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;49270675]In theory it should be able to do decent 1080p given the pixel could. Canon could have just gimped the firmware so people would buy the C100. But I am noticing some aliasing on the arm of that chair.[/QUOTE]
MLV RAW mode has exaggerated moire for some reason.
I, on the other hand, was wondering why the video suggested I get a separate sound recorder? Why can't I use a shotgun mic (say, a Rode VideoMic) straight into my DSLR?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
