So, is the 5D3 soft?

[Brian Brown]

Originally Posted by Tony Davies-Patrick

For landscape photography, the Canon 5D Mark II, matched with the highest quality lenses, is one of the best cameras that you can buy.

Tony, I just can't imagine that this is true. For stills? Most definitely so. But, I've seen too much video footage from the 5D2 that just falls apart attempting to render a bunch of leaves, pine needles, grass, water ripples (and moire' comes into play there, too), and large expanses of forest, fields, sea, or sky.

I've noticed the same thing comparing my 7D footage to my XH-A1 on wide, deep DOF shots. A close-up of a bull elk with a 200mm/2.8L? Fantastic! A wide shot with a 17mm of the same bull elk in a meadow near a lake? Ugh. That's what I meant by "right tool for the job."

Something about the skipping/binning just removes the clarity from the imagery. I think a dedicated HD video sensor will just beat the pants off of any DSLR in terms of resolving detail in these scenes because of all of the skipping/binning that must take place to pull 2k video off of a 20k+ sensor.

Once my Mk III arrives, I'll put it up against my 7D and XH-A1 against some nature footage, since I've got over 400 square miles of it right outside my front door.

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Andy Wilkinson

As an aside, someone else has now posted a comparative video between a hacked GH2 and 5DMkIII shot in the UK and specifically focussing on resolution. He is still pretty scathing about the Canon for those that want to ready it - so look out for that (I won't directly link it here).

Hi Andy,

I enjoy the that blog, but I wouldn't get too caught up by the author's comments on the 5DIII. His focus has historically been on resolving power. Fair enough, but at the same time I feel he somewhat downplays the 5DIII's strengths (while overstating its perceived weaknesses - the "fizz" he refers to is not something I've come across - the 5DIII is amazing in the noise department).

I also have a Gh2 - in fact, I've recorded to via HDMI out direct to ProRes so I've captured it in all its glory.

Certainly it captures astounding detail. But its aesthetic is miles away from the 5DIII; this is all personal preference of course, but for me as much as I love the Gh2 for detail, it's just too clinical, too dry... the 5DIII creates a much prettier, more resonant image. I think subject matter comes into this a lot: I like capturing people and intimate surrounds, where the 5DIII excels. Andrew Reid typically captures a lot of wide vistas and nature shots, and for this purpose the Gh2 really is a good (and wonderfully cheap) option.

I think you'll love the 5DIII Andy... I wouldn't worry too much about image postmortems. For me (and it sounds like, for you too), moire and aliasing were the big issues with earlier Canon DSLRs. This has been dealt with, basically eliminated - I think Canon should get some credit for this.

[Chris Barcellos]

Seems like the debate goes on forever. Count lines, count pixels, What is better, sharp resolving capabllities, or those other intangibles. Diaganol pixel arrangement, etc., etc. etc. I suppose it is proper in a forum about video cameras, but my gosh, don't be claiming one camera is better than the other just because it gets better resolution.

As I posted in another thread, the 5DII has been a great boon to the budget film maker because of the look it provided. "Act of Valor" proves you can shoot a commercial feature film with the 5DII and presumably the 5dIII and get it released. We saw a nicely filmed episode of House shot with it.

If you are a pixel peeper, or camera techie, for the first ten minutes of these films, you looked for all the tell tale signs. Then you actually started watching the story. If you know what you are doing, you can shoot a feature film with the GH2 also, the Z1, also the PD150, the Canon Xl1, and a lot of other cameras out there. Its all about story, characters, shooting in the right light. Down at the end of the list is the actual equip used to shoot the camera. I don't see many credits, except on films we do on this site, that actually tell you what the film was shot with.

Time to make movies !

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Time to make movies !

An outlandish idea man, what have you been smoking?

[Andy Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Josh Dahlberg

I think you'll love the 5DIII Andy... I wouldn't worry too much about image postmortems. For me (and it sounds like, for you too), moire and aliasing were the big issues with earlier Canon DSLRs. This has been dealt with, basically eliminated - I think Canon should get some credit for this.

Yep, thanks Josh. I think a lot of the negativity all over the web relates to people expecting C300 performance at 4 year old 5DMkII prices from the 5DMkIII. It just ain't going to happen for marketing reasons we all understand well.

[As an aside, I spent 20 years in the big corporate world working all over the world on the R&D technical side, always in close association with marketing people and all their "positioning" of my teams new products relative to other offerings and those of competitors.]

Sure, it would have been great if it was 1000 lines of resolution and/or had clean 1080p HDMI out. Technically, it could have been designed to have those features - but it does not. Canon's desired market positioning for this product is why it does not. If anyone can't live with that, simply go buy another camera. The FS100 is the nearest rival. I've looked hard at it - but it's not for me. Nor is the Nikon D800 (I have too much Canon glass and certainly don't want another DSLR that shows aliasing).

I have to say some of the latest 5DMkIII films now appearing on a 5DMkIII Vimeo channel and on YouTube seem to suggest that, in the right hands, this camera is capable of some superb images and a worthy successor. The "magic" is definitely still there, and without many of the issues we all had to deal with before. I just love "the look" that is possible.

Speaking personally, I also get some commercial stills work on the back of my video work - so the much improved stills capability of the 5DMkIII will be an excellent boost to my 7D which is currently handling that aspect.

And then we have the excellent low light capability both in stills and video. Yep, I want that too.

As I mentioned earlier in one of these threads, I'm 90% likely to push the button on a 5DMkIII soon, just waiting for NAB to see what else might appear in the £3-7K ish area in the next 6 months or so before I finally decide. Until then the credit card is staying locked up in the Safe and I'll keep going with the EX3/7D/TM900 combo that's serving me terrifically well.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Originally Posted by Brian Brown

Tony, I just can't imagine that this is true...A wide shot with a 17mm of the same bull elk in a meadow near a lake? Ugh. That's what I meant by "right tool for the job."
.

You'd be hard-pressed to be able to shoot 17mm-wide video footage with the XH-A1...yet the 5D matched with the Canon L 17-35mm or 16-35mm L produces wonderful detailed footage.

That's why I prefer using the right tool for the job. :)

The tiny sensors and medium-wide lenses available on camcorders such as the XH-A1 or XL-H1 have never been wide enough for me in many situations, and as for DOF and crisp detail in landscapes...they are rarely good enough and always look fairly 'mushy'. The Canon XL 6X AF lens has been the best of the bunch by far.

These camcorders also do not provide a fantastic high-rez stills image of the same video scene.

Granted, video from the 5D Mk2 & Mk3 is far behind the stills images from the same camera (and so is EVERY video camera available)...but that huge sensor combined with the incredible wide-angle lens options available for the 5D still makes it the best option for me.

In short, it is the best tool for the job.

[Robert Turchick]

I did a greenscreen shoot yesterday (quick audition) and left the mkIII with its stock settings. Had my 24-70 f2.8 on and shot at f8 iso400 Got it into AE with Primatte Keyer Pro and it did a very nice job with enough detail to capture some flyaway hair. SOOO much better than the mkII or 7D! No comparison to my XF300 though but that was expected. I think with some in-camera tweaking the mkIII will be just fine for general duty.
Stop pixel peeping and go shoot with the thing!! :)

And if you flip it over to still mode, be prepared for a different beast! It is unbelievably sharp with gorgeous color and the fastest AF I have ever seen!

[Brian Brown]

Great news, Robert. I'd LOVE to quit pixel-peeping... if B&H would just send me my MkIII already!

Good to hear about your greenscreen success. A few weeks back I was able to key some chroma footage from my 7D without too many problems. Ultra in Premiere 5.5 handled most of the shots, except one that I did a rack-focus with, which I used Keylight in A.E. Granted, it was kind of a cheesy film, so no one was peeping too much on it: Berthoud Bash 2012: Cowboy Up! - YouTube
I'm looking forward to seeing more film work with the (slowly) arriving MkIII's.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Removing the OLPF on a brand new 5DMkIII removes some of the softness ....along with the warranty!

Some increase in aliasing but no increase in moire is mentioned.

I don't think this is an early April Fools article (I have my doubts about the specs in the Sony NEX-FS700 stories....) but I guess we'll all know soon enough.

For sure, this looks like a real 5DMkIII being taken apart in these pictures. There are with and without 1080p frame grabs too.

James Miller removed optical low-pass filter from 5D Mark III for resolution increase.

Elsewhere on the web I've read that someone reckoned it is currently 890 lines (ex factory, without this modding!). Seems higher than I'd expect from footage I've downloaded from others. Anyone seen any proper resolution chart test results yet?

[Jon Fairhurst]

Removing the OLPF would be nuts! It cuts frequencies that are slightly in-band for 22MP stills, not 2MP video. It also cuts out of band signals can cause aliasing no matter the end resolution.

The claim that it adds aliasing but not moire is equally bizarre. Moire and aliasing are due to the same problem - out of band frequencies appearing as lower, in-band frequencies. The difference is the content. A telephone line shows aliasing while a shirt shows moire. Show a slew of telephone lines, or one thread from a shirt and aliasing and moire swap positions. Based on content, they look different. From the technology side, they're the same thing.

Any softness in the 5D3 has to do with the way the pixels are read and combined. The softness is not due to the OLPF. The OLPF is your friend. :)

[Andy Wilkinson]

And now the video....looks pretty sharp!

Canon 5Dmk3 OLPF removal, first results on Vimeo

[Charles W. Hull]

Originally Posted by Andy Wilkinson

And now the video....looks pretty sharp!

Miller says there are two OLPF filters, and he removed the "secondary" one which doubles as the self cleaning plate. Not sure this make sense, but the video sure looks clean.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Here is a resolution test video that is being debated on some forums. It has just now gone up on YouTube in 1080p (and its also been on Vimeo a little longer). Possibility of getting 890 lines resolution has been suggested - I'll let the resolution chart experts determine if that's accurate or not!

Canon 5D Mark III Resolution and Sharpness Test - YouTube

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

It looks like a lot of people will be 'hacking' their 5D Mark III bodies to turn them into 'single OLPF' bodies! :)

I suppose the cleaning plate is also out of action if one of the OLPF's is removed.

The question is, how vast a difference is there between a non-sharpened video shot with a 5D Mk3 minus one OLPF, and post-sharpened video shot with a Mk3 with both OLPFs in place? And is it really worth all the extra hassle...inclusive of loss of warranty on a new camera?

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Andy Wilkinson

Removing the OLPF on a brand new 5DMkIII removes some of the softness ....along with the warranty!

Wow... "some of the softness" is an understatement Andy. Much more akin to a C300 image than the 5DIII with sharpness off and no post work.

The 1080p file on Vimeo shows a truly impressive difference. No moire to speak of either.

Is this an April Fools prank? If not, who do I give my 5DIII to - I want that OLPF ripped out now!!