anyone move to FS100 from Canon 5D

[Thomas Wong]

I am a 5D user, sold my 5D, and looking for something better.
I am thinking FS100 / 5Dmk3 (i have some L lenses) / D800 (i have no lens)

Any comments from 5D users on the FS100?
I also heard people saying that FS100 is not that easy to get good footage. But if you have experience using DSLR for video, it will be super easy, is that true?

[Chris Barcellos]

I actually went one step lower, to the Sony VG20. Image off the VG20 is definitely higher resolution, and generally less noisy in low light than 5D II. Problem with Vg20 is no really adjustment to sharpness, contrast and saturation. Otherwise, it would be a perfect step up.

[Kevin Dooley]

I just made this switch and am in the middle of shooting my first project with it. The footage I've seen so far looks amazing. I didn't have any trouble with the switch, but I am also the type to read through every piece of literature/blog on a subject before buying it. Not to mention I tear open the box, find the manual and read it cover to cover before touching the item.

The FS100 is an upgrade in every way if you don't mind going from a FF35mm to a Super35 sensor size.

[Matt Davis]

I was so encouraged by the DSLR revolution I was prepared to sell off my EX1s and go 100% DSLR. To check and test my business model, I bought a 550D/T2i, Tokina 11-16, an adaptor for my Nikkor 17-55/2.8 plus a little FD glass at the long end.

My experiences can be summed up here:

Down with DSLRs! Travelling Matt

From that point on, I was tempted by the AF101, but happily plumped for the FS100. Have not looked back since. It's an astonishing picture-making machine. Yes, you need an EVF on a Noga arm, you need some ND filters, maybe even a matte box.

I've shot with a 5d Mk2, I've shot with a 550D. The horrors of moire and aliasing, the unusable and ruined shots at 720p50, the hassles of audio (though I do now appreciate the quality of an audio system with good mic preamps), and the complete and utter arse of DSLR ergonomics, all are behind me.

Originally Posted by Thomas Wong

FS100 is not that easy to get good footage. But if you have experience using DSLR for video, it will be super easy, is that true?

The FS100 is a video camera. However, it's as if it were designed by people frustrated by shooting with DSLRs as it checks so many boxes. You need to spend a lot of money on a DSLR to make it into a video camera, you need to spend a certain amount of money on an FS100 to make it into a usable everyday 'any assignment' camera.

The Mk3 promises no aliasing or moire - just that is enough for me to whistfully think about getting back to DSLR videography. Overheating? Thing of the past. 12 minute takes? Gone - but... but in 29 minute chunks, I must have another camera.

FS100 works all day on one battery, 32 GB cards hold so much high quality video that is BETTER than Canon DSLRs, sorry - got the video to prove it.

It's just the little things, like... the ability to check focus during a shot on a screen that's part of the camera. Duh? What's not to love about that?

Or how about those inky black spots in shadow areas in DSLR footage - we spend so much time protecting our highlights, that the shadows fall off a cliff on our WFMs. At least with the FS100, I can build a profile that will give me what I want, overcast, sunny, indoors, at night.

Oh yes, and the noise. What noise? :-)

But I would say this, wouldn't I? I'm an FS100 fanboy.

[Dennis Murphy]

Switched from 18 months with a 7D to FS100.
Haven't regretted the decision even for a micro second. The image is superior, bugger all rolling shutter, moire etc, 1080p @ 50fps (I'm in PAL land), 128gig recorder - no 12 minute recording limit, XLR inputs, superior LCD.
I know some people get hung up on how crappy the handle is, and that the camera is a weird shape etc, plus the lcd is impossible to view if you're below the camera... but seriously... for the price and what you get? Bloody amazing.

[Glen Vandermolen]

I'm shooting a short film now with the FS100 and a 5D as the B-cam. So far, the footage from both looks great. I'm actually liking the 5D footage a bit more - except when I see the occasional moire and aliasing artifacts. Otherwise, the 5D has a more rich, cinematic look to it - less video-ish. Now, I've been viewing the FS100 footage on a larger monitor, so blowing up the 5D video may showcase more flaws.
If the 5D MK III has fixed the artifact, over-heating and record time issues, it might be time to switch.

That has me wondering: the FS100 is set to 1080/24P at 24mbps. What does the 5D record in? What's the codec and bitrate in 24P?

[Les Wilson]

My 5DM2 records 24p in H.264 at around 45mbps.

[Alexander Timanov]

As Mr. Doug Jensen said in his F3 - FS100 presentation "FS100 is a DSLR killer" and I completely agree with this statement.

Regards,
Alex

[Bill Weaver]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

My 5DM2 records 24p in H.264 at around 45mbps.

45mps? Really?

[Chris Medico]

Originally Posted by Bill Weaver

45mps? Really?

45mbps is true but its only part of the story. The camera uses a very simple version of H.264 which reduces the efficiency of the codec considerably. The very high bitrate in comparison with other cameras that use flavors of H.264 (such as AVCHD) can not be compared directly. The quality is fine for what it is but as an example of comparison it is not better than XDCamEX which is 35mb LongGOP MPEG2.

[Steve Game]

Originally Posted by Bill Weaver

45mps? Really?

Yes, it can go over 50Mb/s. Its the only way to keep the moire/downres artifacts tolerable in first generation footage. Any re-rendering in post can bring the artifacts well above the threshold of perception.

Steve

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by Bill Weaver

45mps? Really?

I was equally surprised. That's what the Quicktime 7 file inspector is reporting on the original file copied off the CF card (attached).

[Mikko Topponen]

Originally Posted by Chris Medico

The quality is fine for what it is but as an example of comparison it is not better than XDCamEX which is 35mb LongGOP MPEG2.

Yes it is. The XDcamEX at 35mbps breaks up pretty badly in lots of movements. The IPB implementation in the 5d mark ii/iii is a step better.

Moire and aliasing have nothing to do with compression. Mark III looks very good compression wise. If you shoot leaves with an xdcam ex mpeg2 codec at 35mbps...they will start macroblocking and breaking up. Talk about efficiency is odd. The Sony NEX-5n shoots at 24mbps AVCHD but it looks like total crap compared to the FS100 that shoots the exact same bitrate and codec.

AVC-Intra is one the best codecs around...And it's very inefficient.

[Steve Game]

Mikko Topponen wrote
"Moire and aliasing have nothing to do with compression. Mark III looks very good compression wise."

In theory they don't. In the real world, if the raw video is festooned with artifacts that are by design just below the psychovisual threshold, the bitrate of the compression scheme must be high enough to prevent them hogging bandwidth. Its even more important for subsequent compression in post, as the artifacts create more unwanted components that can make the footage unsuitable for anything serious. That is why the BBC and other leading broadcasters want clean footage for ingestion.

I have no knowledge of the 5D MkIII, but all of its predecessor SLRs are afflicted with significant artifacts wherever the scene contains real detail.

Steve

[Chris Medico]

Originally Posted by Mikko Topponen

Yes it is. The XDcamEX at 35mbps breaks up pretty badly in lots of movements. The IPB implementation in the 5d mark ii/iii is a step better.

Moire and aliasing have nothing to do with compression. Mark III looks very good compression wise. If you shoot leaves with an xdcam ex mpeg2 codec at 35mbps...they will start macroblocking and breaking up. Talk about efficiency is odd. The Sony NEX-5n shoots at 24mbps AVCHD but it looks like total crap compared to the FS100 that shoots the exact same bitrate and codec.

AVC-Intra is one the best codecs around...And it's very inefficient.

That is interesting but not what I observed when testing an EX1 alongside a 7d. I found the 7d had more issues with capturing the motion of my test subject (a backlit water fountain that filled the majority of the frame). While the 7d has a very pleasing look to it it lost a lot of detail that in comparison the EX1 held on to. The shutter speed was the same on both cameras.