EX3 5dmkII Very different looks, but compatible

[Olof Ekbergh]

5DmkII and EX3 comparison.

I really like both cameras, they are just different tools.

Pretty dramatic difference in looks, the first and 3rd shot are the 5D with 100-400 L f4-5.6 at 400mm f9 ASA200.

The middle shot is an EX3 stock lens at f1.9 first at 437mm then zoomd back out to 297mm. On the meta data for the EX3.

It was a pretty overcast day just after rain.

The DOF is really different even with the EX3 wide open and the Canon stopped down to f9. The colors match pretty well with my profiles though. Also notice how much softer the Canon OOF is. The EX3 is harsher and has an uneven look to the edges.

Vimeo link to video:

Birds on Vimeo

[David W. Taylor]

Olof,

Alas your video link to Vimeo just displays a blank pane.

DT

[Olof Ekbergh]

David, it works well for most people. But you can always click in the text (Birds on Vimeo) it will take you to the Vimeo page.

[Paul R Johnson]

Difficult to assess as the image field of view is very different, but apart from depth of focus they're quite similar. DSLRs I feel can take decent pictures, but it isn't just about picture - it's about the rest of the package - sound, features, display, adjustability and ergonomics and practical things like being able to shoot continuously for extended period. I'd buy a DSLR straight away if it could replace my use of my SD camcorder - but they can't ... yet!

[Olof Ekbergh]

Paul, the Camera position is exactly the same for both cameras. I just switched them on the tripod.

I tried to frame them the same. The branches and feeder are in the same position in both shots. It is interesting how completely different they look. But I think the Color match is pretty good.

I agree that there are big limitations in ergonomics and record time in the present crop of DSLRs, but it is exiting to have these new tools at this price point.

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Difficult to assess as the image field of view is very different

Field of view looks near identical to me, it's just the depth of field that makes it looks different. Main difference is obvious the massively extra apparent sharpness in the EX3 image. This will obviously be down to the setting within the cameras and I'm sure the SLR could be bought upto similar levels if not in camera then in post.
As Paul says, it's ergonomic things that are going to be a big factor, plus the codec I'd say - there's no useable HDMI feed for Nanoflash and the like is there?
Steve

[Stuart Brontman]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

Field of view looks near identical to me, it's just the depth of field that makes it looks different. Main difference is obvious the massively extra apparent sharpness in the EX3 image. This will obviously be down to the setting within the cameras and I'm sure the SLR could be bought upto similar levels if not in camera then in post.
As Paul says, it's ergonomic things that are going to be a big factor, plus the codec I'd say - there's no useable HDMI feed for Nanoflash and the like is there?
Steve

Maybe it's my monitor, but both cameras seem comparable in sharpness - maybe a slight "edge" to the EX-3, but that could also be due to focus being slightly off on the 5D mkII... Both look nice to my eyes.

[Simon Denny]

Hi Olof,

What PP have you used on the 5D? and also the EX3.

Thanks

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Stuart Brontman

Maybe it's my monitor, but both cameras seem comparable in sharpness - maybe a slight "edge" to the EX-3, but that could also be due to focus being slightly off on the 5D mkII... Both look nice to my eyes.

Or maybe mine! To me if it was a scale of 1-10 the 5d would rank 3 and the EX3 a solid 10!
Not saying this is a good thing and that it makes the EX3 better, as I said I'm sure it'll just be down to the camera settings. Stills photogs will tell you that you always use unsharp mask on photos as they don't usually get much sharpening in camera, while video guys will usually tell you they always dial down the detail as it's set way too high in camera!
On the Sony HDW750 HDCam cameras the BBC settings recommended a Detail Level of -70 for instance vs the 0 that's set as default!
Steve

[Marten Dalfors]

Originally Posted by Olof Ekbergh

It is interesting how completely different they look. But I think the Color match is pretty good.

So what settings are you using on the cameras? I would be grateful if you would share since I think you got quite a good match.

[Olof Ekbergh]

Simon and Marten, I will post my exact settings here, for both cameras when I get a chance, probably later today.

Stay tuned.

I will post some more footage to compare soon as well. Of interview setup mixing these cams.

[Olof Ekbergh]

Here are my settings for 5DmkII and EX1R/EX3 (these are based on Doug's recommendations and work very well, I made slight adjustments from his). If there are any color shifts I fix them in Color, usually very slight adjustment in highlights only. Also either use 5600 in each camera or custom set both WB's. This is crucial.

And a shot of my 5D w/o mattebox. I don't use that all the time, but the follow focus is nice to have. I use VCT-14 or TA-100 tripod mounts on all my gear, it is fast and very secure and will accommodate anything from a DSLR to a 950.

So this is my quick shoot setup with Canon 24-70 f2.8 L. This is my most used lens, I love it.

[Steve Nelson]

I'm looking at this on a 32" LCD TV and there is a difference that the trained eye will notice quickly. The color is pretty close but the EX3 is sharper with a deeper DOF. The red is darker and less pink on the EX3 but the greens are very close. Still, I think they could be cut together well as long as you know the differences going into post.

[Josh Dahlberg]

Good comparison.

As a 7D/5DII owner with a fleet of quality glass, I gotta say I'm tempted to pull the trigger on an EX (or more likely Canon XF) camera very soon rather than extending my DSLR kit.

The DSLRs have obvious advantages in low light / DOF control, but after shooting almost exclusively with them since late 2008, I really miss the DR and detail offered by cameras in the EX/XF league.

Lately I'm - rather ironically - starting to find deep DOF refreshing, especially when the DSLRs don't do it well (of course you can close the aperture down outdoors, but that's when you really notice the lack of detail/resolution across the frame). What's more, the DSLRs are very heavy handed in how they render colour and contrast compared to the EX/XF. They just don't do things in a very delicate / subtle way (not to mention the moire / aliasing which spoil shots from time to time).

While it's a costly option, I think pairing a 5DII (for low light / tight DOF) with an XF (detail, DR, keying, form factor, lens reach, moire free images) provides the best of both worlds at the moment.

[Bill Davis]

I don't understand comparing these cameras one-on-one at ALL.

The EX3 is a great prosumer video camera with 3 1/3" sensors that are capable of 1920x1080 imaging - but that records ONLY a raster of 1080p. The initial imaging chips are VASTLY smaller than the single HUGE full frame sensor on the 5dMkii. The 5dMkii is an amazing STILL CAMERA that only works for video when it's chip output is resized WAY DOWN to 1920x1080. (or 640x480).

In order to compare them fairly, you really can't do a "straight up" comparison since they are both doing things VERY differently - and in order to output a screen image for comparison purposes you need to INTERPOLATE the original files into an arbitrary standard.

This INTERPOLATION will, by necessity, screw up the head to head comparison.

Who knows if marginally viewable discrepancies - the "sharpness" of this one - or the "depth of field" of that one - are the result of WHICH part of the original settings, the lens quality, the compression processing, the re-sizing, the resolution at which you're doing your judging, the 'do i SHRINK the 1920 one or EXPAND the 1080 one?' And if I take a native "swatch" of each, how does that square with what you're using to DISPLAY the images for judgement? A single monitor can't run at BOTH 1920 native AND 1080 native at the same time now, can it? So there's something in the monitor card and display unit that's further interpolating something in order to display it. The 5d runs between 1/3 and 1/2 the price of an EX3.
Is that important? I don't know. Is it? I wouldn't want ONLY a 5d in my work - to many hassles in audio and function compared to a purpose built video camera. But there's nothing else like it in video cameras yet - so as a stand alone video imaged capturing system, it's pretty freeking amazing.

All you can tell with absolute certainty is this...

BOTH of these are capable of great video. Both present compromises. One is a video camera that can't take stills. The other is a still camera that CAN take exceptional video - however you will lose some common video functions that most videographers expect (easy white balance, audio capabilities, etc)

In the end, the comparison is fundamentally as silly as comparing a horse and a mule. Want to go fast? Pick the horse, unless that horse is old, lame, or won't let you ride him fast - if so a mule might get you someplace faster. Want to haul more gear up uneven terrain? Get a mule. Or a veteran pack horse that ACTS like a mule.

But arguing about whether the mule or the horse is "BETTER" is nuts. They are simply DIFFERENT. Which is the point.

My 2 cents worth anyway.