Once the Canon 5D Mark II was released, it turned out groundbreaking. Never before could we shoot full 1080p video in a very handheld Digital slr. Three and a half years later, Canon has released the mark III. Can it be three and a half years evolution on the camera? It all depends. I want to explain.
Let's begin with the nice. The sound features about the mkIII are drastically improved. For the previous version, you are left the need to monitor audio blindly, which is a terrible method things. Now with the help of the headphone out jack integrated, we could listen to what's being recorded. Thank heavens! Digging in manual audio levels is amazing, and seeing the meters on-screen while recording is best of all! While recording, you can also alter the audio levels utilizing the touch wheel, if the audio is riding a touch too high, you are able to change promptly! Sweet!
When it comes to picture styles, there isn't any more moire or aliasing that I can see. This is the fantastic improvement. Before with all the mkII, I rarely sharpened the footage in postproduction, the good news is using a clean image straight from camera, I will sharpen without seeing nasty artifacts appear. In terms of sharpening, I truly do find the Canon 5D Mk3 footage a little flat. I don't see the crisp image seen in my c300, Ii would not make use of the in camera sharpening styles. So to add one extra step, I'm sharpening my mkIII footage in postproduction. It genuinely brings the footage to life, and doesn't look muddy because the straight from camera clips do. Around the downside, rolling-shutter continues (and possibly always will with SLR cameras).
Your camera recording time is greatly improved this go around. You can now record clips continuously around 29 minutes 59 seconds. Apparently a camera that records over half an hour continuously classifies like a full camera in certain countries, so that is the reason for the maximum clip length allowed. Also the addition of 60FPS at 720p is a nice improvement, although not groundbreaking since this feature has beenhas become included on Canon cameras for a while now.
The lower light capabilities from the mkIII certainly are a huge improvement. On the Mark II, I found that 1250 ISO was bad. Canon's noise is ugly, and I found the noise in the shadows at 1250 pretty gross. With my low light tests, I was impressed by 6400 ISO for the mkIII. You will see noise, but it's not horrendous.. 3200 is completely useable, not to mention anything below that is very clean!
Now on to the bad. The resolution and detail of the image isn't a real huge improvement from the earlier release. Side by side, both cameras output much the same looking footage, and also the specs are pretty much identical. Like I pointed out, rolling shutter artifacts remain (and slightly improved, if any).
On the mkII, the output was rather pitiful at 480p. Around the Canon 5D Mk3, no clean output is accessible at 1080p. This is a huge disappointment as both Nikon's new releases (the D800 and D4) have this feature. It could be possible using a firmware update, but I I'm not holding my breath. Canon definitely missed the potential on this one.
If I'm getting picky, I'd love the ability to punch inand see focus while I'm recording, but alas that feature isn't available. They've also moved the punch in button top right left hand side. It's an unnecessary move, but tend to be changed in the menu settings.
So, ultimately, what's my final conclusion? Can it be worth selling your mkII and upgrade for the new, device? I believe, yes! The headphone out jack is worth the cost upgrade alone. In the event you are a documentary filmmaker, the lower light capabilities certainly are a huge plus, and highly recommended. Sure, there's nothing truly groundbreaking, but when comparing it for the mkII, which was, it's tough to compete. The mkII was the first of it's kind, however the mkIII is continuing the tradition.
Let's begin with the nice. The sound features about the mkIII are drastically improved. For the previous version, you are left the need to monitor audio blindly, which is a terrible method things. Now with the help of the headphone out jack integrated, we could listen to what's being recorded. Thank heavens! Digging in manual audio levels is amazing, and seeing the meters on-screen while recording is best of all! While recording, you can also alter the audio levels utilizing the touch wheel, if the audio is riding a touch too high, you are able to change promptly! Sweet!
When it comes to picture styles, there isn't any more moire or aliasing that I can see. This is the fantastic improvement. Before with all the mkII, I rarely sharpened the footage in postproduction, the good news is using a clean image straight from camera, I will sharpen without seeing nasty artifacts appear. In terms of sharpening, I truly do find the Canon 5D Mk3 footage a little flat. I don't see the crisp image seen in my c300, Ii would not make use of the in camera sharpening styles. So to add one extra step, I'm sharpening my mkIII footage in postproduction. It genuinely brings the footage to life, and doesn't look muddy because the straight from camera clips do. Around the downside, rolling-shutter continues (and possibly always will with SLR cameras).
Your camera recording time is greatly improved this go around. You can now record clips continuously around 29 minutes 59 seconds. Apparently a camera that records over half an hour continuously classifies like a full camera in certain countries, so that is the reason for the maximum clip length allowed. Also the addition of 60FPS at 720p is a nice improvement, although not groundbreaking since this feature has beenhas become included on Canon cameras for a while now.
The lower light capabilities from the mkIII certainly are a huge improvement. On the Mark II, I found that 1250 ISO was bad. Canon's noise is ugly, and I found the noise in the shadows at 1250 pretty gross. With my low light tests, I was impressed by 6400 ISO for the mkIII. You will see noise, but it's not horrendous.. 3200 is completely useable, not to mention anything below that is very clean!
Now on to the bad. The resolution and detail of the image isn't a real huge improvement from the earlier release. Side by side, both cameras output much the same looking footage, and also the specs are pretty much identical. Like I pointed out, rolling shutter artifacts remain (and slightly improved, if any).
On the mkII, the output was rather pitiful at 480p. Around the Canon 5D Mk3, no clean output is accessible at 1080p. This is a huge disappointment as both Nikon's new releases (the D800 and D4) have this feature. It could be possible using a firmware update, but I I'm not holding my breath. Canon definitely missed the potential on this one.
If I'm getting picky, I'd love the ability to punch inand see focus while I'm recording, but alas that feature isn't available. They've also moved the punch in button top right left hand side. It's an unnecessary move, but tend to be changed in the menu settings.
So, ultimately, what's my final conclusion? Can it be worth selling your mkII and upgrade for the new, device? I believe, yes! The headphone out jack is worth the cost upgrade alone. In the event you are a documentary filmmaker, the lower light capabilities certainly are a huge plus, and highly recommended. Sure, there's nothing truly groundbreaking, but when comparing it for the mkII, which was, it's tough to compete. The mkII was the first of it's kind, however the mkIII is continuing the tradition.
canon 5d mark iii rumors