RED vs XDCAM vs D5

Todd Grossman · November 23, 2009

I've shot all three now and I was hoping to hear some outside opinions on what everyone thinks, mostly of the D5 compared to the RED or Sony's EX3 XDCam?

Thanks

Adrian Sierkowski · November 23, 2009

I honestly think they are vastly different tools for different reasons. The D5 is great if you're shooting stills or want to keep under-the-radar when you're video-ing, but I'd no want to try to shoot a feature on it, whereas the RED is well suited to feature work but perhaps not the best for a wedding. The EX3 (and 1) can fall in the middle, good for most of your video-work and documentaries, and it can work OK for features, but in truth the RED is a better tool. And while the RED can shoot video with similar DoF characteristics, it's neither as low-profile or single user oriented as the D5. So the real question is what are we comparing about these cameras and in what situation? Are we talking about music video work? Corporate Industrial? ENG? Web? Live Event? Feature? Short? Documentary? etc.....

November 23, 2009

Excellent response Adrian! Agree on all point.

John Sprung · November 24, 2009

Yup, very different tools and price/performance points. Be sure to test carefully for dynamic range and color gamut, and aliasing on fine patterns and motion.

-- J.S.

Saul Rodgar · November 25, 2009

By D5 I assume that you all are referring to the Canon 5D mkII?

Adrian Sierkowski · November 25, 2009

That was my assumption, but yes, the 5D MKII is what I was referring to (for clarity)

Chris Kenny · December 4, 2009

Anyone considering the 5D Mk. II for motion work should be aware of this. Now, mind you, I've seen some great things shot on that camera, but there are consequences to the tricks Canon currently has to use to get an SLR to shoot at 30 fps.

As far as EX3 vs. Red, we own a Red and I've also done a bunch of shooting lately with EX-series cameras. I've done side-by-side tests a couple of times. The Red has substantially less noise when both are correctly exposed, and generally has a much smoother sort of more organic quality to its image -- especially in the highlights. On the other hand, the EX cameras are more light-sensitive and much easier to work with, particularly for run-and-gun style shooting.

In short, they're almost completely different tools, and the choice is usually pretty clear cut for any given project.

Stephen Williams · December 4, 2009

Anyone considering the 5D Mk. II for motion work should be aware of this. Now, mind you, I've seen some great things shot on that camera, but there are consequences to the tricks Canon currently has to use to get an SLR to shoot at 30 fps.

As far as EX3 vs. Red, we own a Red and I've also done a bunch of shooting lately with EX-series cameras. I've done side-by-side tests a couple of times. The Red has substantially less noise when both are correctly exposed, and generally has a much smoother sort of more organic quality to its image -- especially in the highlights. On the other hand, the EX cameras are more light-sensitive and much easier to work with, particularly for run-and-gun style shooting.

In short, they're almost completely different tools, and the choice is usually pretty clear cut for any given project.

Hi Chris,

Did you do any tungsten light tests & which gamma curve were you using on the EX3.

Thanks Stephen

Sam Martin · January 2, 2010

The 5D is a great camera, just like the EX3 but in terms of image quality and resolution, the RED camera destroys them both. If you can afford it in your budget and have the post workflow in place, go RED all the time. Now the 5D is great for small spaces, short budgets, internet delivery..... You can get some cool looking images with oth EX3 and 5D and make it look like high end camera.... The ability of using 35mm SLR lenses with a lightweight camera is also really cool..

Sam Martin

Decode

http://www.decodeuk.com