Since the amazing initial release of raw video for dslr, new features have been rolling out everyday for seemingly every kind of camera. It's a lot to keep track of and I am having an increasingly hard time differentiating the features particularly of the mk ii vs mk iii.
Besides the ability to manage more frames of higher resolution raw video at once, what else can the 5d mkiii do that the 5d mk ii can't?
I've spent many hours reading the forum to try and keep a running tally of differences, but many times the threads I've read don't specify and I'm left wondering if the feature I just read about applies to both 5d's or if I'm assuming too much.
Basically, I'm just trying to draw definitive lines between the two models because as far as I can tell the mark ii can pretty much do anything the mark iii can.
SIGH I completely HATE questions just like this just makes no sense at all really jimmy you have to be told which cameras better pretty sad
I'll just say it like this 3 is higher than 2.
Quote from: JimmyG on July 17, 2013, 06:55:07 AM
Besides the ability to manage more frames of higher resolution raw video at once, what else can the 5d mkiii do that the 5d mk ii can't?
...
Basically, I'm just trying to draw definitive lines between the two models because as far as I can tell the mark ii can pretty much do anything the mark iii can.
Sounds to me like you answered your own question. ::)
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6215.msg47111
In my opinion what the mk3 offers over the mk2 is footage that is relatively free of aliasing and moiré. Totally worth it for me, although you could try a VAF for the mk2 as well.
The mark iii has better anti-aliasing, has a higher speed bandwidth(higher resolutions, longer record times), higher resolution in crop mode, about 3.5k in width compared to 2k width for the mark ii, a better cmos sensor(higher ISO's with less noise, etc...), and the mark ii cannot record continuous full HD AFAIK. I imagine there are more things as well.
Short answer, the mark iii is the better camera for raw and in general. The real question is are its strengths worth the 3X increase in price for you.
Quote from: optik on July 17, 2013, 08:54:59 AM
SIGH I completely HATE questions just like this just makes no sense at all really jimmy you have to be told which cameras better pretty sad
I'll just say it like this 3 is higher than 2.
SIGH I completely HATE when people waste time clogging up the forums by giving non-answers like this.
I am not asking for opinions, just facts. I know the mark iii is better, but I'm asking for clear differences, so people don't have to read hundreds of pages of threads like I did in order to know where the differentiating lines are. All the headlines being made talk specifically about the mark iii, but I am trying to figure out if the mark ii is at least comparable in managing all these new raw features, or perhaps if there are certain features that it is incapable of performing entirely.
Quote from: Redrocks on July 17, 2013, 09:29:50 AM
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6215.msg47111
That's just what I was looking for! Thank you.
Quote from: Oedipax on July 17, 2013, 04:49:20 PM
In my opinion what the mk3 offers over the mk2 is footage that is relatively free of aliasing and moiré. Totally worth it for me, although you could try a VAF for the mk2 as well.
VAF, yes I have started reading about that. I'll have to look into those more. Thanks.
It seems the mark iii is just generally faster/better than the mark ii, but both are generally capable of performing the same tasks.
Quote from: JimmyG on July 18, 2013, 03:51:44 AM
SIGH I completely HATE when people waste time clogging up the forums by giving non-answers like this.
I am not asking for opinions, just facts. I know the mark iii is better, but I'm asking for clear differences, so people don't have to read hundreds of pages of threads like I did in order to know where the differentiating lines are. All the headlines being made talk specifically about the mark iii, but I am trying to figure out if the mark ii is at least comparable in managing all these new raw features, or perhaps if there are certain features that it is incapable of performing entirely.
That's just what I was looking for! Thank you.
VAF, yes I have started reading about that. I'll have to look into those more. Thanks.
It seems the mark iii is just generally faster/better than the mark ii, but both are generally capable of performing the same tasks.
Seriously, a buyer have to look at the hardware specification first. Clearly, the 5D Mark III is the better choice. Functionally,the collective data gathered through the forum are enough to convince any buyer to separate the II to III. You should know better.
I shot on the Mark II for two years straight. I picked up a Mark III not too long ago, and there's no comparison whatsoever (in the video department...I'm not referring to stills).
The only way you'd even want to consider a 5D2, is if the price of a 5D3 is out of your range.
How is this a reason to upgrade? Noise performance in areas that wont be used and moire/aliasing reduction. The 5D 2 is actually slightly sharper because it doesn't have a moire filter.
Even the comments and the top comments agree that it clearly isnt worth the upgrade except if you have $1600+ extra to spend.
To be fair that video is outdated somewhat, xNiNELiVES. The mkiii is a better prospect with the new ISO hack & RAW. Having said that, Act of Valor and the finale of House season 6 were shot on the mkii in h264, so the differences are academic. The mkii is now discontinued though.