Change to full frame better or same as crop

[Mark Von Lanken]

Originally Posted by Steve Bleasdale

... 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...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

Earlier this year I went from using Canon 60Ds to 2 5DMk3s and a 6D. The Mk3s and 6D blow away the 60D in low light and with the Mk3, you can say good bye to moire. If moire isn't an issue with you, you could consider the 6D. I have seen 6Ds below $1700 in the US.

With the 60D, I would shoot the reception with 1.4 primes. Now with the Mk3/6D I can shoot with zooms in the 2.8-4.0 range. I love shooting the first dance on the Mk3 with the 70-200 2.8 so much more than with the 60D on a 50 or 85mm 1.4.

Magic Lantern is awesome on the Mk3/6D.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Mark thanks I think that was the answer I was looking for. If I can use the 70-200 and the 24-70 in the 5d3 in low light then I would not have to mess around. Changing lens. Now I have to change for low light churches, change back again then change again later at night. All to much messing around. Cheers Brenda for your comments. I am siding towards the 5d3s, but will hold the decision as there are new cams coming out all the time. Cheers guys great information.

[Peter Riding]

Bearing in mind that the 5DIII was introduced 18 months ago and the 7D a full 4 years ago, and with the slew of new small bodies and lenses being announced from other manufacturers, I'd be tempted to resist the new-toy-syndrome ..... if indeed it is a factor at all ..... until at least the spring and the start of the busy season. Just to have a clearer idea of what becomes available and at what street price together with reliable user reports.

I always regarded the 5DIII as an incremental rather than a revolutionary step beyond the 5DII, especially when you take into account the modifications possible to the II with Magic Lantern.

My priority next time I do a major equipment replacement will be very small and very light so it may be goodbye to Canon dSLRs. But as regards fullframe v. crop, I would be nervous about losing the wider catchment of the fullframe as this can be critical in many of our cramped overcrowded UK venues.

Pete

[Steve Bleasdale]

Mmm cheers Pete... Some videos with the 5ds 3 look great, although I have seen some great footage with the gh3 pana, jeeez cannot make a decision. Yep a camcorder that gives me the dslr look with a great cheap price will do me haha.

[Les Wilson]

Having gone from 5DII to GH3, I'd caution you about the GH3. You may be disappointed with it. The MFT chip being smaller yet than the crop just doesn't easily produce as nice a bokeh even at 2.8. In the main, unless I really work at it, I find the shots "meh". There's plenty of hyperbole about it from its fan boys and it looks good on paper. Also, there are some ergonomic issues that may or may not matter to you (documented in another thread). If you are looking at full frame to get an improvement over crop, I think the MFT will disappoint you. And as a Canon shooter, some of the GH3 ergonomics will frustrate you. But the flip out screen is great for shooting video. The smallness and lighter weight is great for travel but in and industry where the size of your camera matters, the GH3 looks like a joke next to someone with a Canon 7D or better. YMMV

[Steve Burkett]

It's easy to get into a war of camera brands. For the record, the GH3 handles very well and I wouldn't be without the swivel screen, though to be honest I prefer the GH2 image for daylight shots, only turning to the GH3 for indoors. The size difference is only a bone of contention in photographic circles; in Video anything smaller than a Professional Video Camera is going to look a joke to the uninitiated. The one big advantage for the GH3 is the 50p - it's very useful for confetti, handheld, slider, stabiliser shots and those moments when the bride and groom decide to speed walk down the aisle.

However I admit to make the GH3 sing for you, you need some great glass, specifically primes to really grab acceptable indoor footage and bokeh. The Mark III can achieve the same result shots with a good zoom lens, so the real answer is what system works best for you. Try out both cameras either via loan or in a shop - grab some footage and see which you feel the most comfortable using. There really isn't one good answer on what is the best camera, only what works best for you.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Cheers Les & Steve, still edging mark iii 5d, but everyone raving over this rx10 Sony but just found out you have to stick with the one zoom lens on the camera at 2.8 ok but for low light weddings I need that 1.2/1.4

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

...The size difference is only a bone of contention in photographic circles; ....

@steve, you stated it as if it were a fact. Is there a study or two that shows that or is it just your opinion? I personally disagree.

[Steve Burkett]

It's clearly an opinion, but one out of my own experience. Among video circles the GH3 may have its detractors, but given that the pocket cinema camera hasn't been widely viewed as a joke among videographers shows size isn't always an issue in our profession, only results. For those people who aren't familiar with video technology, they are equally surprised at my canon as they are my GH3. The idea that a DSLR of any size can film good video is still a new one to many. If they expect a bulky cinema camera and see a DSLR, be it a 7d or Gh3 the same remark on how much smaller cameras are these days is still made. I've yet to encounter any client or guest for all my Weddings who have objected to the size of the GH3. If any of my kit seen as a joke, its the furry cat on my microphone. Women just love playing with it.

[Nigel Barker]

I have now honed by gear to the point where I am shooting with a 5D3 as my A cam but have added a Panasonic G6 for my locked off wide safety shot. My G6 is a PAL version but a model that has no recording limit. I have also added an Olympus OM-D E-M5 which has phenomenal in body 5-way stabilisation so is great for handheld shots & faking a crane, slider or Steadicam.

I have been very, very impressed with the two MFT cameras and am seriously considering selling the 5D3 & getting the new OM-D E-M1 to use as my A camera along with some decent MFT lenses. At the moment I just have the 14mm F/2.5 plus the 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 PZ kit lens but the combination of the Panasonic 12-35mm F/2.8 & 35-200mm F/2.8 would give me all the range I need with possibly the Panasonic 25mm F/1.4.

These MFT cameras are just so portable without being small & fiddly. I used to have a GH2 & couldn't get on with it as it was so teeny & plasticky but the OM-D is just lovely to use & the G6 is far better ergonomically. The 5D3 in comparison weighs a ton particularly when I have the 20-200mm F/2.8L on it. Both the G6 & OM-D are good & noise free up to ISO3200 & while the 5D3 is good for ISO6400 I can live with slightly worse but still phenomenal low light performance of the MFT cameras.

The OM-D is a great stills camera too. I know professional photographers who use these for weddings. This guy uses three slung round his neck each with a different prime lens Olympus OMD EM5 12mm 17mm 25mm 45mm 60mm Wedding Photography | ShutterLeaf Photography

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

I always regarded the 5DIII as an incremental rather than a revolutionary step beyond the 5DII, especially when you take into account the modifications possible to the II with Magic Lantern.

Having owned a 5D2 since 2008 & a 5D3 for the last 18 months I can categorically tell you that the 5D3 is a lot more than an incremental improvement over the 5D2. Just for starters 1-2 stops improvement in low light performance is great, 30 minute rather than 12 minutes recording time, better codec at lower bit rate so cards fill up more slowly, NO MOIRE or aliasing, the list goes on & on.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

There's plenty of hyperbole about it from its fan boys and it looks good on paper.

Don't want to start a "this one is better as the other one" thread here because everyone has it's favorites and I think Steve should make a decision about which factors matter most to him, that can be depending on lenses here already owns that might make it a better choice to stay on Canon side or based on features he needs to do his job, We all know that the first gen canons below the 5d have not been very good in terms of low light, moire and resolution, I have used a 550d for a few years and with all next models Canon has not made any significant improvement in image quality in neither the 550d, the 7d or the 6d as that last one is known for it's awful moire. The only real improvements where reserved for the 5dIII.

I have no doubt the 5dIII is a very capable camera but it comes at a price, you can get three gh3 bodies for that price, or a gh3 and 2 of it's best lumix lenses and when you say that it looks good on paper or that the shots look "meh", well, I can only say you don't know how to get the most from that camera.

There is a lot of footage available that prove otherwise, some of my favorites are these:

"https://vimeo.com/62274504"
"https://vimeo.com/72737956"
"https://vimeo.com/70663191"
"https://vimeo.com/77984732"

The first one is interesting as it was done by a 5dIII owner that prefers using the gh3 now for video, this is what he says about it: https://vimeo.com/62269059#comment_8982242

The gh3 is a very capable camera but you need to know how to use it, like any camera, and you need to work around it's shortcomings, like any other camera too. Based on my short experience and coming from a 550d I can only say I am very pleased with the quality of the image this camera outputs and it has been a worthwhile upgrade from my 550d, in terms of handling I did prefer the 550d but in terms of image quality the gh3 is a large step forward for me and that difference my clients see as well. I"m also sure a rx10 would match up very well with the gh3's sharpness where with the 5dIII you can expect to do quite some post sharpening to match both camera's, (I have seen the first test footage from the rx10 on vimeo where you can download a file straight off the card and the detail is insane, see here "https://vimeo.com/78199989") I don't own the 5dIII but have seen a few tests that show how soft the canon is standard, something to consider if you end up buying both camera's.

If low light performance and full frame is the most important thing on your list and you own a set of canon lenses suitable for full frame, the 5dIII is the most obvious choice but don't let the gh3 appearance fool you, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing's :)

[Noa Put]

Ok, one more and then I"ll stop before people start calling me a fanboy again :) I have posted below video on this forum before and this was taken when I just got the gh3, I didn't read the manual and just took it with me on holiday, together with some vintage tamron lenses, I didn't concentrate on getting "bokeh", for that the lenses I had with me where too slow, I just wanted to capture the beauty and then I don't care about shallow dof. Eventhough with a f1.4 lens I could have achieved that, most shots where set to get a as wide as possible dof.

If I have to say so myself, the images and the color I was able to pull out of the camera looked pretty darn good to me as I just started to use the camera, there is also a very few g6 footage in there and you can notice because it is not as sharp as the gh3. Also important is that the Tamron lenses are softer and lack contrast compared to lumix lenses but I think they have more "character" that I find better for my personal work, for weddings I prefer the sharp, contrasty and colorful lumix lenses, they really make your image pop on a big screen.

Fruits De Mer on Vimeo

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

in and industry where the size of your camera matters, the GH3 looks like a joke next to someone with a Canon 7D or better.

Don't think weddingclients care if you hold a gh3 or a 7d in your hands, I have shot with a 7d before as well, not my camera but a loaner and the image quality was the same as my 550d, in that respect I can say I"d take a smaller cheaper and better performing camera over a larger more expensive worse performing camera anyday, and it doesn't have to be a "panasonic", i"m brand agnostic, give me a Sony tomorrow equally priced as the gh3 that performs better and I"m off shooting with a Sony.

I am curious though, because you seem to be so disappointed about the performance of the gh3, is there some footage you shot that I can see which would make me understand why you think it's so bad?

[Nigel Barker]

Noa has mentioned several times that the G6 is not as sharp as the GH3 but he seems to be the only one who finds this. I own a G6 and have used a GH3 & there is no way that I would ever describe the G6 as soft. The image looks very very similar to the GH3.

[Noa Put]

That was when I shot in 50p, with my tamron lenses I could pick out which shot was done with the g6, I have seen a user reporting that the g6 was softer at 50p compared to 25p but I have not been able to test it yet, might do that soon.