MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: canon 5D IV vs Gh5 for stock  (Read 1906 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 23, 2017, 15:58 »
0
hi everyone.
i have canon 6d and some nice lenses: 17-40L, 35L, 50L, 100macro, 200L
i am in photography business for a long period (10 years)....and start video recently. Now when i learn a lot about video recording and processing i thinking about to start to do stock video seriously.
so, my question is about camera. Is it better to upgrade to 5dIV and use all lenses i have, or to buy panasonic gh5. What is better camera for stock footage business.

thansk


« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2017, 18:14 »
0
I'm in a similar boat, got a 6D which is great for stills, also doing some nice time-lapses with it too.

However for proper video it's terrible, and not 4K.

I was thinking 5DMk4 or Sony A7R III, they should also be releasing a A7S III soon which might be tempting.

« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2017, 02:00 »
0
keep the 6D and buy GH5 with metabones speedbooster for Canon lenses. You'll have a good photo camera(6D) and a much better video camera (GH5). The 5D MarkIV is a crap video camera. Canon intentionally degraded the video support on photo cameras to favor the Cinema line of video cameras.

« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2017, 07:24 »
+1
i agree with the post above.

You can use all of your Canon lenses on the GH5. Right now, there isn't one camera that can do it all really well, so you'd need two if you want full-frame glory photos (which you want).

Canon had the chance to make the camera EVERYONE would buy with the 5D mk IV. But they chose not to... They have really, really misjudged today's market in my opinion. No wonder Sony and Panasonic are doing great. And they have big professional video cameras too...
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 07:27 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2017, 07:47 »
0
Got the M1V and its really not much more then an updated Mlll. Great for stills! all these dslr's have got drawbacks for video and difficult to work with.Rather set your eyes on a second-hand full-frame video-recorder so much more and so much easier to work with.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2017, 08:26 »
0
GH5 without questions is far more superior camera than 5D IV ... for video of course!

« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2017, 08:47 »
0
hi everyone.
i have canon 6d and some nice lenses: 17-40L, 35L, 50L, 100macro, 200L
i am in photography business for a long period (10 years)....and start video recently. Now when i learn a lot about video recording and processing i thinking about to start to do stock video seriously.
so, my question is about camera. Is it better to upgrade to 5dIV and use all lenses i have, or to buy panasonic gh5. What is better camera for stock footage business.

thansk
If you are thinking Canon? check out the C series cameras if you are serious about doing video. I wished I had done that from the start rather than trying to turn my primarily stills camera into a video camera. Here's why: If you shoot outdoors, having built in neutral density filters is worth the price of admission alone. I cant tell you how many good shots I've missed becasue I had to fiddle with changing filters. Not too mention making people wait while you try to find your 1.2 ND. You change filters a lot being limited to 180 degree shutter speeds. Being able to shoot wide open in bright light at a push of button is great also. Onboard decent xlr audio 2 channels, rather than having to always sync with external recorder. I bought a c200 recently and absolutely love this camera, after a few months of using this I would never go back to 5ds, gh?. All my canon glass works with c200, dual pixel touchscreen auto focus opens up a lot of opportunity for the one man show, the focus tracks well. 15 stops dynamic range, the super 35 sensor images looks great. Ability to record 4k 60p RAW in camera is nice too if you want to wrangle with all that data in post. Color science is great, first canon camera that didn't push to magenta, skin tones are nice right out of camera. Good low light performance. Rent one of the c series cameras and see how your shooting goes compared to dslrs, they are a pleasure to work with. The video only cameras are set up to make your life easier while shooting, the only thing I miss about dslrs is the lighter weight. Even the pivoting view finder is a nice change and keeps you from having to get into awkward postions to see when on tripod. If budget is biggest concern check out c100.
 
Here is some sample footage, this is c200 mp4 setting pretty much ungraded footage. This is the aftermath of hurricane Irma on St John where I currently live. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3oRkFMt2Qs&feature=youtu.be
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 09:15 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2017, 13:02 »
+1
If you are thinking Canon? check out the C series cameras if you are serious about doing video. I wished I had done that from the start rather than trying to turn my primarily stills camera into a video camera. Here's why: If you shoot outdoors, having built in neutral density filters is worth the price of admission alone. I cant tell you how many good shots I've missed becasue I had to fiddle with changing filters. Not too mention making people wait while you try to find your 1.2 ND. You change filters a lot being limited to 180 degree shutter speeds. Being able to shoot wide open in bright light at a push of button is great also. Onboard decent xlr audio 2 channels, rather than having to always sync with external recorder. I bought a c200 recently and absolutely love this camera, after a few months of using this I would never go back to 5ds, gh?. All my canon glass works with c200, dual pixel touchscreen auto focus opens up a lot of opportunity for the one man show, the focus tracks well. 15 stops dynamic range, the super 35 sensor images looks great. Ability to record 4k 60p RAW in camera is nice too if you want to wrangle with all that data in post. Color science is great, first canon camera that didn't push to magenta, skin tones are nice right out of camera. Good low light performance. Rent one of the c series cameras and see how your shooting goes compared to dslrs, they are a pleasure to work with. The video only cameras are set up to make your life easier while shooting, the only thing I miss about dslrs is the lighter weight. Even the pivoting view finder is a nice change and keeps you from having to get into awkward postions to see when on tripod. If budget is biggest concern check out c100.
 
Here is some sample footage, this is c200 mp4 setting pretty much ungraded footage. This is the aftermath of hurricane Irma on St John where I currently live. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3oRkFMt2Qs&feature=youtu.be

No doubt the C200 is a GREAT camera, but two major drawbacks: price and size (and stills).

The C100 doesn't have 4k so that's not really an option today, especially not for that price.

The C200 is a camera for a planned shoot, a commercial that takes a couple of days. A team. Actors. All great.

Hiking in the forest or walking through Rome as a one-person-production. Not as great anymore.  :)

The GH5 (and GH4) can produce ALMOST the same level of quality under good conditions. Small, convenient, much cheaper.

Yes, built-in ND filters are awesome, but you can get a quality variable ND.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 13:06 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2017, 14:40 »
0
No doubt the C200 is a GREAT camera, but two major drawbacks: price and size (and stills).

The C100 doesn't have 4k so that's not really an option today, especially not for that price.

The C200 is a camera for a planned shoot, a commercial that takes a couple of days. A team. Actors. All great.

Hiking in the forest or walking through Rome as a one-person-production. Not as great anymore.  :)

The GH5 (and GH4) can produce ALMOST the same level of quality under good conditions. Small, convenient, much cheaper.

Yes, built-in ND filters are awesome, but you can get a quality variable ND.
[/quote]

No doubt if you are hiking around the extra weight is a burden, so big cam not an option. I have a Gh4 with metabones and also another micro four thirds camera dji x5 for drone. I'm really not happy with either camera and don't think I would buy another micro four thirds sensor camera. Even dji is getting into super 35 for drones. The images from micro four thirds is more video like, less natural if that makes sense and colors are always not what I was hoping for. Perhaps I'm not getting the most from those cameras with settings. I prefer the look of a canon 5d2 over the gh4, haven't tried gh5. I think its just the limitations of the sensor. A cellphone can probably take a nice video, but it looks very crunchy and video like. So yeah, I would still take a c100 over the Panasonic just for the way the file looks and all the bonuses that come with a video only camera if you are shooting a lot of video. If you are shooting a lot of stills then get a stills camera. There is no perfect stills and video combination. I remember watching a review of gh4 against c100 after I already bought the gh4 a few years ago, they were comparing sharpness and boasting about gh4, but too my eye the c100 image just looked way more pleasing to the eye. I had a lot of shoots with gh4 where I just couldn't get color right. The image straight out camera of a c200 is way different than any of my other cameras. It might even be tough to match them up to blend in a timeline. As far as 4k goes, I'm not selling much, but I hear you on future proofing.

« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2017, 14:53 »
0
No doubt if you are hiking around the extra weight is a burden, so big cam not an option. I have a Gh4 with metabones and also another micro four thirds camera dji x5 for drone. I'm really not happy with either camera and don't think I would buy another micro four thirds sensor camera. Even dji is getting into super 35 for drones. The images from micro four thirds is more video like, less natural if that makes sense and colors are always not what I was hoping for. Perhaps I'm not getting the most from those cameras with settings. I prefer the look of a canon 5d2 over the gh4, haven't tried gh5. I think its just the limitations of the sensor. A cellphone can probably take a nice video, but it looks very crunchy and video like. So yeah, I would still take a c100 over the Panasonic just for the way the file looks and all the bonuses that come with a video only camera if you are shooting a lot of video. If you are shooting a lot of stills then get a stills camera. There is no perfect stills and video combination. I remember watching a review of gh4 against c100 after I already bought the gh4 a few years ago, they were comparing sharpness and boasting about gh4, but too my eye the c100 image just looked way more pleasing to the eye. I had a lot of shoots with gh4 where I just couldn't get color right. The image straight out camera of a c200 is way different than any of my other cameras. It might even be tough to match them up to blend in a timeline. As far as 4k goes, I'm not selling much, but I hear you on future proofing.

I also have a Canon 5D mk III that I sometimes film with, and yes, Canon color science is great. Maybe the best. However, in terms of overall quality I feel you have to shoot RAW to get anywhere close to the GH4, once you've gotten used to 4k details. Had I never seen 4k, the built-in codec might have been fine. I film a lot of nature/wildlife, so details are a big, big part. For people, I suppose less details is often a good thing.  :)

Anyway, shooting RAW is a pain in the behind, and while the files look great, it's not a practical solution.

I have seen some C100/C200 footage and what I like the most I believe is the dynamic range, the way light goes to dark and the general colors. It is, as you say, very pleasing to the eye.

But I also think you can get GREAT, stellar even, footage with the GH4, and even more so with the GH5 (10-bit). There are lots of settings to play around with, and I've found that Cine-D misses on the colors quite a bit. I like to use the natural profile with low contrast and saturation to preserve the dynamic range. And expose to the right. I don't think it looks "video" at all if the settings are spot on.

Anyway, the C200 is surely a better film camera than the GH5 in terms of pure quality, but size and price are not ideal (for me).

Filming spontaneously becomes very hard with a less-than-convenient setup.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 15:02 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2017, 17:14 »
0
No doubt if you are hiking around the extra weight is a burden, so big cam not an option. I have a Gh4 with metabones and also another micro four thirds camera dji x5 for drone. I'm really not happy with either camera and don't think I would buy another micro four thirds sensor camera. Even dji is getting into super 35 for drones. The images from micro four thirds is more video like, less natural if that makes sense and colors are always not what I was hoping for. Perhaps I'm not getting the most from those cameras with settings. I prefer the look of a canon 5d2 over the gh4, haven't tried gh5. I think its just the limitations of the sensor. A cellphone can probably take a nice video, but it looks very crunchy and video like. So yeah, I would still take a c100 over the Panasonic just for the way the file looks and all the bonuses that come with a video only camera if you are shooting a lot of video. If you are shooting a lot of stills then get a stills camera. There is no perfect stills and video combination. I remember watching a review of gh4 against c100 after I already bought the gh4 a few years ago, they were comparing sharpness and boasting about gh4, but too my eye the c100 image just looked way more pleasing to the eye. I had a lot of shoots with gh4 where I just couldn't get color right. The image straight out camera of a c200 is way different than any of my other cameras. It might even be tough to match them up to blend in a timeline. As far as 4k goes, I'm not selling much, but I hear you on future proofing.

I also have a Canon 5D mk III that I sometimes film with, and yes, Canon color science is great. Maybe the best. However, in terms of overall quality I feel you have to shoot RAW to get anywhere close to the GH4, once you've gotten used to 4k details. Had I never seen 4k, the built-in codec might have been fine. I film a lot of nature/wildlife, so details are a big, big part. For people, I suppose less details is often a good thing.  :)

Anyway, shooting RAW is a pain in the behind, and while the files look great, it's not a practical solution.

I have seen some C100/C200 footage and what I like the most I believe is the dynamic range, the way light goes to dark and the general colors. It is, as you say, very pleasing to the eye.

But I also think you can get GREAT, stellar even, footage with the GH4, and even more so with the GH5 (10-bit). There are lots of settings to play around with, and I've found that Cine-D misses on the colors quite a bit. I like to use the natural profile with low contrast and saturation to preserve the dynamic range. And expose to the right. I don't think it looks "video" at all if the settings are spot on.

Anyway, the C200 is surely a better film camera than the GH5 in terms of pure quality, but size and price are not ideal (for me).

Filming spontaneously becomes very hard with a less-than-convenient setup.
Right, I totally understand where you are coming from. Landscape photography/videography is great in 4k with max detail, don't like as much once you add a person.  I shoot with a 5dsr for landscape stills and I'm really happy with that camera. I wanted to get 5dmk4 for stills/video combo, but was disappointed that it didn't do anything really well. I tried the gh4 in cine D for a while and didn't like the results at all. Ended up switching to a standard profile I think "natural" and liked it better, but still not huge fan of that camera and the Raw stills are very mediocre to my eye on a micro four thirds sensor. So, I really only see it as a video only camera. C200 shoots in Raw 12bit 4k, but I haven't even got into it that much yet because adobe is not supporting the raw lite codec, they said next CC update hopefully. Round tripping workflow is just ridiculous for raw with c200 right now. Files end up 18gb for 20 second clip when converting from canon's software and they are only have option for 10bit converted if you are on a windows machine. It's definitely not a one size fits all with video, I guess as long as your happy and producing the stuff you like, it doesn't really matter what you are using.

« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2017, 17:29 »
0
Raw stills are very mediocre to my eye on a micro four thirds sensor. So, I really only see it as a video only camera.

Definitely agree, which is why I carry two cameras (full-frame for stills and timelapse)... Haha, so much for the small size then. Oh, the irony.  ;D Good to be able to film while shooting a timelapse though.

Files end up 18gb for 20 second clip when converting from canon's software and they are only have option for 10bit converted if you are on a windows machine.

Wow, that's pretty substantial. 4k RAW is definitely not enjoyable... I think HD RAW is bad enough...

« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2017, 18:17 »
+1
Raw stills are very mediocre to my eye on a micro four thirds sensor. So, I really only see it as a video only camera.

Definitely agree, which is why I carry two cameras (full-frame for stills and timelapse)... Haha, so much for the small size then. Oh, the irony.  ;D Good to be able to film while shooting a timelapse though.

Files end up 18gb for 20 second clip when converting from canon's software and they are only have option for 10bit converted if you are on a windows machine.

Wow, that's pretty substantial. 4k RAW is definitely not enjoyable... I think HD RAW is bad enough...
Yes, that all in one cam still not out there..lol. Its funny because a year ago I was all about going light, I had drone micro four thirds cam on gimbal, phone for monitor, it was an easy convenient lightweight setup. Over time though I wanted a better image.  I do the same with shoots, try to take 2 cams, put everything in Pelican suitcase, but hopefully not too far to walk. Bought a backpack for c200, but I'm getting older and its really heavy to carry c200 and extra lens, audio gear, tripod on anything longer than a short hike. Hoping the raw workflow gets a lot easier when you can just drop the raw file in premiere, or after effects and edit away. I know red cameras have a great codec system where you can select the compression on your raw file from 20 to 1 or something like that. So the files don't have to be massive and still are workable in post. Canon raw lite is 5 to 1 compression I think, but its a new codec and no one but Resolve supports it. Couldn't even imagine dealing with an uncompressed 4k raw file, the computer alone needed to process files would be costly I think unless you did everything with proxy files. That sounds like extra work too.

Another thing, you made a great point about the dynamic range being the difference. I think this is true for all the higher end cameras, red, arri, even ursa mini, they all have that dynamic range which ends up looking more like film. I've noticed big differences in how the c200 handles something like shooting into the sun, the way the transitions are handled is much smoother than my other cameras, not to mention you might be able to get a face not to silhouette without using any extra light.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 18:39 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2017, 02:31 »
0
All this is very well but the C200 is just about 1000 times easier to work with moving, panning following subjects. A dslr shooting video is a major hassle in comparison using various contraptions follow-focus etc etc. The only real advantage is a full frame sensor at a good price.

« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2017, 04:38 »
0
All this is very well but the C200 is just about 1000 times easier to work with moving, panning following subjects. A dslr shooting video is a major hassle in comparison using various contraptions follow-focus etc etc. The only real advantage is a full frame sensor at a good price.

I'm sure the C200 is much better than a dSLR. But the capital expenditure is much much higher too.

Think of the thousands upon thousands of extra downloads needed to pay for the C200.

Do you really think customers will notice the difference in quality enough to boost your sales accordingly?








« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2017, 05:21 »
0
All this is very well but the C200 is just about 1000 times easier to work with moving, panning following subjects. A dslr shooting video is a major hassle in comparison using various contraptions follow-focus etc etc. The only real advantage is a full frame sensor at a good price.

I'm sure the C200 is much better than a dSLR. But the capital expenditure is much much higher too.

Think of the thousands upon thousands of extra downloads needed to pay for the C200.

Do you really think customers will notice the difference in quality enough to boost your sales accordingly?

Probably not in quality but you will be able to shoot a hell of a lot more and much quicker. I work on commissiones a lot and what took me 3 days of footage using a dslr takes me less then one day with the C200. Time is money!

For just stock-footage I suppose it doesnt matter all that but its still a huge difference.

« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2017, 08:45 »
0
All this is very well but the C200 is just about 1000 times easier to work with moving, panning following subjects. A dslr shooting video is a major hassle in comparison using various contraptions follow-focus etc etc. The only real advantage is a full frame sensor at a good price.

I'm sure the C200 is much better than a dSLR. But the capital expenditure is much much higher too.

Think of the thousands upon thousands of extra downloads needed to pay for the C200.

Do you really think customers will notice the difference in quality enough to boost your sales accordingly?

Probably not in quality but you will be able to shoot a hell of a lot more and much quicker. I work on commissiones a lot and what took me 3 days of footage using a dslr takes me less then one day with the C200. Time is money!

For just stock-footage I suppose it doesnt matter all that but its still a huge difference.
Right, this is what I'm loving the most about this camera, image quality aside, being able to get the shot the first time is priceless. The other day I had one chance to catch this particular utility truck coming over a hill straight at me. I was able to get an auto focus lock right as he was coming over the hill and a smooth pan as he passed me and still locked as it was driving away. Never losing focus throughout the shot, at a 2.8 aperture..lol. I would have certainly screwed this shot with my dslr's.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 08:52 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2017, 10:36 »
0
I was able to get an auto focus lock right as he was coming over the hill and a smooth pan as he passed me and still locked as it was driving away. Never losing focus throughout the shot, at a 2.8 aperture..lol. I would have certainly screwed this shot with my dslr's.

That's valuable indeed. I've missed many shots using manual focus but there's a certain charm in the challenge too.  ;D

« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2017, 12:03 »
0
Canon need to go into damage control and up their game very quickly because Sony, Panasonic and others are moving in on their market share big time

« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2017, 12:10 »
0
thanks all on detail answers...

c200 is out of my plans now :(

from my perspective, correct me if i am wrong, what i see like a main benefit od gh5 FOR STOCK is really good video at high FPS (4k/60fps and 1080/180fps)... i notice that slow motion footage is really popular on stock.
On the another side, video from Canon 5dIV looks really good, color an contrast are really nice. And canon Dual pixel AF work really good (i own 70D). And from my postion, all my high quality canon lenses will work without any kind of additions of convertors.

I think that i can survive that old codec on canon 5dIV, but, from my point of view again, lower FPS is main disadvantage of Canon when we speak about STOCK....and main reason why i think about GH5.

Maybe I'm not familiar with the footage stock market, but that is what i think.
And Again, please correct me if i am wrong  ???


« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2017, 12:21 »
0
thanks all on detail answers...

c200 is out of my plans now :(

from my perspective, correct me if i am wrong, what i see like a main benefit od gh5 FOR STOCK is really good video at high FPS (4k/60fps and 1080/180fps)... i notice that slow motion footage is really popular on stock.
On the another side, video from Canon 5dIV looks really good, color an contrast are really nice. And canon Dual pixel AF work really good (i own 70D). And from my postion, all my high quality canon lenses will work without any kind of additions of convertors.

I think that i can survive that old codec on canon 5dIV, but, from my point of view again, lower FPS is main disadvantage of Canon when we speak about STOCK....and main reason why i think about GH5.

Maybe I'm not familiar with the footage stock market, but that is what i think.
And Again, please correct me if i am wrong  ???

Slow motion is extremely useful, but just keep in mind that you lose A LOT of detail when you use 180fps. It's more like 720p. A round balloon flying close to the camera will look fine, but palm tree leaves will look like crap...

But 4k 60p is incredible and, for me, worth it alone if I had to choose between 5D mk IV and GH5.

« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2017, 03:22 »
0
I thinking about to upgrade my original 3year old 6d.
So there a two solution, sell 6d and:
1) buy just 5dIV and do photo and video with it.
2) buy 6dII and GH5. and use 6dII for photo and gh5 for video.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
75 Replies
22268 Views
Last post October 19, 2008, 13:51
by a.k.a.-tom
75 Replies
31955 Views
Last post December 19, 2008, 18:59
by stokfoto
5 Replies
6371 Views
Last post April 16, 2009, 12:01
by PaulieWalnuts
20 Replies
7352 Views
Last post November 06, 2012, 11:39
by sdeva
6 Replies
1439 Views
Last post December 23, 2015, 15:25
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors