5d mark iii vs 6d image qualityh upgrade#
upgrade the bodies as things improve and get cheaper.but the codec + computer stays as is or can improve and upgrade too.
5d mark iii vs 6d image qualityh 1080p#
So now everyone can just buy any dslr they may want at their affordability level.then that module and voila.everyone gets to record high quality 1080p out of their cameras. In it.you place a computer capable of properly downsampling to 1080 whatever the megapixels of the camera its attached to, at different framerates, with its own heatsink.then save it as prores. Here's an idea, create a module shaped like a battery grip which you can insert with any dslr FF or apsc, interface thru USB and take over the camera's computer during video caprture. Sensors and all other stuff are already amazing, ( as evidenced by the stills they can produce).its just up to their internal processors and codec. So I'm guessing what camera manufacturers should be investing in is loading up much much more powerful computers inside their dslrs that can take up the live processing of 24 megapixels to 1080p. With modern sensors from Sony (24 mpix apsc/24mpix FF) and the others.shouldnt we be having extra detailed, hi res, high DR, and very clean, 1080ps with them but were not.from any brand. It is a tough combo to beat and I don't see the 6D. I love the 80D and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens combo. Again if it were me I would go for the 80D over the 6D Mk II. This might not be a factor for you but it would be for me. The 6D line is an entry level series but the 5D line is pro level. With the recent AMAZING demos of the power of the RED Dragon sensor (20+ DR, Native 2000 ISO etc).all with a 24 megapizel Super35 sensor.I can't understand the excuse of DSLR companies having less tha stellar resolution of HD than the RED is capable of when you downscale 6K to 4K then 4K to 1080p.I mean.should'nt 1080p benefit for the oversampled pixels of photo cameras (16-24 at the moment).and these problems of moire and resolution shouldnt even come up. IMHO, I would go for a 5D Mk III every time.
While the Nikon D800 will resolve more detail and has clean HDMI, and the Mark III won't have any noticeable aliasing/moire (and is getting clean HDMI), the 6D is right up there with the best low-light performers Canon has ever made - at least a stop better than the Mark III thanks to the lower pixel count. I haven't had the chance to shoot with it yet, but if I was just getting started and looking at a full-frame DSLR, unless you've got another $1,000 or so to spend, the 6D looks like a great option. I still like full-frame a lot, even if shooting with an APS-C sensor is much easier on focus, and while shooting with a DSLR can sometimes be a major pain, I think the 30 minute record time combined with the higher resolution HDMI output during recording is a huge benefit to the 6D (since you're stuck with about 20 minutes per clip on the 7D - not to mention that camera is prone to overheating). imported as DSLR footage to Premiere Pro CS5.5, exported to H.264 1080 24P, 7Mbps. No color grading was done in any clips in this video.
0 kommentar(er)
