Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED one vs Canon 5D Mark 2

C

cinemano

Banned
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello

I know they are diferent beasts.. but not that different..
Some shots look even sharper than my red.. Then again i use nikon lenses on my red.. but worth a discussion i think..

Check out this video made on the Canon 5D MarkII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu3bQqCTAIw

Id be very interested to hear thoughts and feedbacks comparing the two's picture qualities.. not counting compression, as naturally the canon has h264 but can the human eye tell so much?
 
I own neither cameras but I do know that both do produce great picture qualities. If someone goes looking around, that same video can be found in 1080 resolution (youtube doesnt do it justice) on canon's website. However, canon does have its flaws. One of them is in compression. I've read on various websites that users complain about how its compression would produce random black dots weren't in the original shot. Secondly, another complain is the lack of manual controls when it comes to video. There area ways to get creative with this and make your own custom controls (well, from what i've heard/read), but is still a downside.

However, we have to take note that canon's focus is for a camera that great pictures then great video while RED is the other way around so you'd expect one company to do better in one area rather than both.

I am not calling the 5D mark II a bad camera, but I am just saying its not perfect nor competes with the RED one as they are in different markets (just like how I think RED does not compete with HD cameras as they are in different markets. Come on, 4k vs 1080i/p?) But for an end product, one may not notice what's RED and what's canon as both may have similar DoF and with a good color correcting job, one can easily make the shots have a perfect match. Once on DVD, I am sure nobody could even tell what shot is what, perhaps making the canon 5D a great B-Camera alongside a RED one for certain projects.

However, once RED's line of DSMC come out, this will definitely change as the Scarlet is well priced in line with the canon 5D, offers more control, and more resolution. 2009 will be an interesting year for the video world.
 
For low light I think the 5D Mark II is a game changer.
 
There's a crapload of threads on this already, but suffice to say the 5D does not hold much of a candle in real picture quality performance.

It does however create a fair chunk of the "look" of the Red, which alone makes it useful for some stuff, especially things that would get distributed on the web or SD video. I agree with Stephen's comment above that it is a game changer for low-light doc work. Some people are going to make amazing documentaries with this camera.

After doing my own testing, I was surprised to see that the codec is not half bad at all, which stands to reason as it is h264 at 39mbits. That should be a fair sight better than XDCAM EX, and it appears that it is at least of that quality, and probably better.
 
I got the Canon for Christmas because I wanted something to tide me over until Scarlet, because I wanted to start acquiring Canon lenses for use on Scarlet, and because I will almost certainly keep a dedicated, quality stills camera even after I have a Scarlet. The HD video was the reason I chose the 5D Mark II instead of a cheaper offering.

Having finally gotten to view the 5D's video footage yesterday for the first time with appropriate gamma treatment (post is a problem now for that footage because nearly every NLE doesn't handle its color space properly), I can say that it's video capability is a nice little "extra" feature to have for those times when you want to capture motion, but it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as RED when it comes to real motion capture.

The lack of manual control of ANY of the three major variables in exposure is obviously the first thing most would seize upon in comparing. And, indeed, it's beyond frustrating to not be able to dial in something as fundamental to motion handling as shutter speed on the Canon and have the camera KEEP that setting when you record video. It's a roll of the dice when you hit record as to what your settings will be.

But that's not the most troubling aspect to me. There are three, huge image quality issues when using this camera for video:

(1) Compression that is obviously not optimized for motion, resulting in a lot of mosquito-type noise and jittery details that are quite distracting. A static or near static shot, if there are a lot of details, can even show these jittery artifacts. Not pretty.

(2) Moire patterns on real world, high-detail subjects, like brick buildings, exacerbated with any kind of panning or camera movement because the moires then shift. My test footage was shot at night (Christmas and street lights) in the downtown area of my small community where a number of brick buildings were in the background of fairly wide shots. The bricks were therefore small enough relative to the sensor size to really show these moires. Very frustrating.

(3) Rolling shutter problems. Forget doing anything handheld with this camera unless you have elastic arms. The stability of a tripod or high quality stabilizer is almost essential if you want to avoid the spatial distortion that comes with anything but the smoothest, slowest movements of the camera. Even tripod pans are problematic if not undertaken very slowly and with enough distance to objects moving through the image plane.

Aliasing on straight, diagonal lines is also a problem, but not nearly as much (to my eye) as the three issues above.

I've seen lots of nice footage on vimeo taken with the 5D Mark II, and there are undoubtedly some types of subjects and shooting scenarios where it can do an excellent job. The scenario I was in for my first tests was obviously not one of them, as the first two of the numbered flaws above was very evident and the third was a problem with several discarded clips.

The one area where this camera would probably knock the socks off a RED one was in low light performance. Absolutely stellar. I was amazed at how clean the dark areas of an image looked when the camera was shooting at 4 figure ISOs.
 
Hello,

I've been testing the 5D and can tell you that resolution chart looks horrible but real life is a different story... Yes there are a lots of problem with this new beast. Compression, aliasing and DR but can be minimized with certain settings. You are not at HD resolution but it's a great SD picture with FF dof. Remember there was a time where SD was transferred to film and it was really good too.

Here a link from another thread where I explain my test and settings:

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=356336&postcount=37

My winner settings for a "natural look" are :
Srgb 3 -3 -1 0 +1/3 stop over exposure :sorcerer:

You have problems with this camera but you also have to learn how to treat the signal. Do you remember beginning 2008 when we had to learn how to develop R3D? Wich parameters, what to shoot and what to avoid (3200k, Blue screen etc...)?

Same here.

It's an amainzing way of shooting. Now The biggest problem I have with this camera is to focus proprerly. The dof is much smaller than on a RED ONE. Remember we are on a FF sensor here. I'm confident now that RED took the right choice to go FF enven if it would be great they could develop a S35 or 2/3 sensor if we need larger dof with same resolution as the FF Monsto! We have a set of Leica lens on adapters 35/50/80/135 summicrons and summilux. I've also played with the Lensbaby. I would love to have a Lensbaby type of "pulling focus" and not rotating. Photo lenses (mines in particular) are hard to move and will cause shaking the camera while shooting. Not nice for mooving images. So we could focus with the tip of the fingers.

The good about this camera is when not looked through the viewfinder poeple don't see you are shooting giving you another dimention to your "Mise en scène" we can argue if it's ethical to shoot without to be noticed though...

Second : this camera does NOT MAKE ANY NOISE while shooting! Thats also badass... :-)

I'm happy to shoot on 5D (documentry) It recalls me of my old Rollei 35T and the way I made photos.

Definitly not to dismiss.

Patrick
 
It really depends on what your delivering. People like to think that they are going to the big screen, but that is rarely the case. I think careful shooting on the 5dm2 would make for great content for the web and DVD. For the big screen, shooting on Red or Film would be best.
 
I just ordered a 5D and I'm looking forward to testing it. One nice thing about it is that I can put Canon primes on it right now, without waiting for Birger.
I shoot mainly documentary now, so I am looking forward to the low light performance, small size, instant boot, and 1080P capture. The test images I have seen look much sharper than R3D footage from my Red. We'll see.
DR deems to be much less than the Red, so I will have to light with more fill. The lack of manual audio control may mean I need to shoot double system audio as with film, which is also a bit of a drag.
Over all, it seems like an incredible tool for B-roll and Doco shooting at about 1/10th the price of a comparable Red system. And it's full frame 35.
I'll post some footage when I test it.
 
kinoeye said:
The test images I have seen look much sharper than R3D footage from my Red.
Click to expand...

I'have to dissagree with that Kinoeye. I didn't do a side by side comparison but RED has really a better image quality talking aliasing, codec, contrast and the feel of sharpeness.

It's simply another beast with huge benefits as you discribed in your post but not comparable to REDONE and R3D.

Patrick
 
Evin Grant said:
I still think the biggest drawback of the 5D is no 24P! Otherwise I would have one already. (With a Nikon F mount adapter of course). I guess I'll just have to wait for the Nikon 400D :)
Click to expand...

It is just a dream!!! :)
 
I have been shooting with the 5D2 for a while. Elizabeth really nailed this topic with her post.

The 1080p coming out of the camera looks soft. Red footage downsampled to 1080p smokes it -- blows it out of the water by a mile. Moire patterns pop up under certain circumstances. No 24p. Lack of RAW. etc.

The iris issue can be overcome by using Nikon lenses with iris rings, and shutter and ISO can be controlled with some work-arounds.

On the plus side, the low-light ability blows every other camera away, by two miles. It's super light and compact, and can shoot for hours on end with only a couple tiny walnut-sized batteries and 2 CF cards. It's very inconspicuous, so you can shoot video anywhere, without the hassle that might come from shooting on a bigger rig, like Red One or even an EX3. Obviously the DOF is beautiful, and the quality of still lenses for FF35 is awesome, even if focus can be difficult.
 
My two cents...

My two cents...

I haven't bought the 5Dii yet, but did check it out at a show. It's really a great camera, and with their 85mm f1.2 prime lens on it, I got pretty excited. I'll get one in the spring, when they become more easily available, and dare I say... discounted?

However, it really depends on what you use your camera for. If you're going to shoot a feature film in 24p, then rent an Epic. If you're looking for a swell little camera to carry around with you all the time, then buy a Panasonic LX3 (thanks Stu, for the recommendation) - because even a DSLR is kinda bulky to carry everywhere.

Where the 5Dii fits is for "doing serious photography" - as in "wow, what a beautiful sunset", "so this is Antelope Canyon", "babe, don't move, the light is perfect on your back".

Therefore, for me, this camera would be for when I'm shooting documentation video (like shooting an audition) or those rare times when I'm going to shoot something beautiful extemporaneously - with no lights or makeup or prep. But if it's for money... then gimme the Epic, the best monitors you can find, a great DP to run it all, the audio field engineer with all his gear, grips, gaffers and PAs please. I guess it's a little like the difference between making love with your girlfriend - vs going to an epic orgy.

Anyway, for a "small format video camera" - the combination of interchangeable lenses, great DOF and low light capability makes the 5Dii better than, say, the pair of HDC-SD9s I shoot auditions with now. Where the 5Dii competes is against these little camcorders and the Nikon D90... not the RED.
 
So the Red One using Redcode 36 records 4k at a rate of 36 mbps and the 5D records 1080P at a rate of 38.5 mbps. Doesn't that mean that 5D footage is considerably less compressed?
 
kinoeye said:
So the Red One using Redcode 36 records 4k at a rate of 36 mbps and the 5D records 1080P at a rate of 38.5 mbps. Doesn't that mean that 5D footage is considerably less compressed?
Click to expand...

I'm not good at longwords.

But I feel you may have a bits and bytes confusion?

Michael L
 
Redcode records at 36 megaBytes per second, not megabits. There is no comparison between 4k raw quality and the 1080p mpeg4 from a Canon. Red quality is much closer to the still frame quality of the Canon than the video. Personally, other than the dynamic range of the sensor I find the 5d's video quality about on par with the Canon HDV camcorders.
 
I agree with the codec and exposure control issues/problems of the 5DmarkII but what the camera does do well is demonstrate the advantages of having good glass on the front of a crappy camera plus it demonstrates the beauty of the FF format (Ah, Vistavision anyone?).

Well done RED for bringing out cameras in the FF format... with a good codec, proper controls and sound. If you can get the low-light performance then so much the better!

JohnF
 
Elizabeth Lowrey said:
I got the Canon for Christmas because I wanted something to tide me over until Scarlet, because I wanted to start acquiring Canon lenses for use on Scarlet, and because I will almost certainly keep a dedicated, quality stills camera even after I have a Scarlet. The HD video was the reason I chose the 5D Mark II instead of a cheaper offering.

Having finally gotten to view the 5D's video footage yesterday for the first time with appropriate gamma treatment (post is a problem now for that footage because nearly every NLE doesn't handle its color space properly), I can say that it's video capability is a nice little "extra" feature to have for those times when you want to capture motion, but it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as RED when it comes to real motion capture.

The lack of manual control of ANY of the three major variables in exposure is obviously the first thing most would seize upon in comparing. And, indeed, it's beyond frustrating to not be able to dial in something as fundamental to motion handling as shutter speed on the Canon and have the camera KEEP that setting when you record video. It's a roll of the dice when you hit record as to what your settings will be.

But that's not the most troubling aspect to me. There are three, huge image quality issues when using this camera for video:

(1) Compression that is obviously not optimized for motion, resulting in a lot of mosquito-type noise and jittery details that are quite distracting. A static or near static shot, if there are a lot of details, can even show these jittery artifacts. Not pretty.

(2) Moire patterns on real world, high-detail subjects, like brick buildings, exacerbated with any kind of panning or camera movement because the moires then shift. My test footage was shot at night (Christmas and street lights) in the downtown area of my small community where a number of brick buildings were in the background of fairly wide shots. The bricks were therefore small enough relative to the sensor size to really show these moires. Very frustrating.

(3) Rolling shutter problems. Forget doing anything handheld with this camera unless you have elastic arms. The stability of a tripod or high quality stabilizer is almost essential if you want to avoid the spatial distortion that comes with anything but the smoothest, slowest movements of the camera. Even tripod pans are problematic if not undertaken very slowly and with enough distance to objects moving through the image plane.

Aliasing on straight, diagonal lines is also a problem, but not nearly as much (to my eye) as the three issues above.
Click to expand...
holy cow.. are you sure you bought the same camera model as me?.. :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top