jcs

This is a non-scientific but comprehensive comparison of 1DC and 1DX II video quality. The 1DX II was kindly provided by Toronto based photographer Paul O'Neil
We tested sharpness/resolution as well as dynamic range and noise performance. Two cameras were setup side by side and kept the same exposure and white balance, videos were recorded at the same time to avoid lighting variance. Lenses were both Canon 24-70 f2.8L II, at f5.6 for optimal performance.
For sharpness/resolution comparison, we used neutral profile with 0, -4, -2, 0 setting.
Please view the following images using the FULL SIZE option.
Test scene:


Results: 1DC and 1DX II have the same sharpness in HD 24/25/30p (same sensor readout). In 50/60p, 1DX II is sharper (better sensor readout) and it kept the same sharpness at 100/120p. Super 35 mode on 1DC remains the sharpest and most detailed 1080p of all modes. Two cameras have the same sharpness in 4K.
Test scenes:


Results: in neutral profile with -4 contrast, 1DC and 1DX II have about the same amount of DR, however 1DX II is nosier in the shadow (more chroma noise). 1DC in C-Log gives more detail in the highlight.
Other observation: with the same white balance setting, 1DX II colour seems slightly warmer and a tad desaturated than 1DC in neutral profile.
Conclusion: 1DX II is a camera with advanced video capabilities (HD 120p, 4K 60p, DPAF), 1DC still deserves its "C" badge for the very detailed Super 35mm HD and higher DR C-Log. Which one is more suitable totally depends on user's need.
Download original 1DX II clips: https://we.tl/4HOdgVNXhI (contains TIFF version of the comparison and HD 120p and 4K 60p clip from 1DX II)

Consumer cameras provide 8-bit 420, Professional cameras provide 10+ bit and 422, 444 H.264.

The Alexa is still king as the Alev III sensor is still the best tech available (designed by Cypress semiconductor, now part of On Semiconductor). It's heavily patented, thus not easy to compete via 'low hanging fruit' (e.g dual voltage sensor read out for high DR low noise). We considered the Amira and Mini, however Canon's PDAF is very useful for our kind of work, and frankly ProRes is ancient tech compared to the latest H.264 codecs (ALL-I and IPB). It's very useful for long-format live shoots to have lower bitrates with very high quality, which H.264 can provide and ProRes cannot. ARRI hardware is very, very power hungry, using custom FPGAs and perhaps not having Sony, Canon, and Panasonic's more advanced VLSI ASICs tech/fabs to reduce power requirements. This means when no AC is available, many large and expensive batteries are required. ARRI is kind of like Ferrari- top of the line, but with significant support costs to operate (don't ask what a brake job costs on a Ferrari with carbon-ceramic brakes (rotors & pads: $30K)).
It's interesting to note that most external recorders don't support the Pro H.264 codecs (10-12 bit, ALL-I and IPB). Video Devices just added H.264 support: http://www.videodevices.com/products/portable-video-recorders/pix-e5 . This is a welcome addition, however the bitrate is very low (10Mbps, probably 420 8-bit). So cameras like the C300 II with PDAF are currently in a sweet spot: near ARRI color and DR, but with PDAF, much lower energy/support costs, and super-high quality 50Mbps 422 10-bit 1080p. The FS7 is also pretty good with color vs. ARRI, has small H.264 files, but no PDAF (the next Sony will likely have this feature).
For low light shoots, the A7S II is currently an unmatched value (the Varicam/LT is probably the best pro-level low-light camera for the money right now).

The Alexa is still king as the Alev III sensor is still the best tech available (designed by Cypress semiconductor, now part of On Semiconductor). It's heavily patented, thus not easy to compete via 'low hanging fruit' (e.g dual voltage sensor read out for high DR low noise). We considered the Amira and Mini, however Canon's PDAF is very useful for our kind of work, and frankly ProRes is ancient tech compared to the latest H.264 codecs (ALL-I and IPB). It's very useful for long-format live shoots to have lower bitrates with very high quality, which H.264 can provide and ProRes cannot. ARRI hardware is very, very power hungry, using custom FPGAs and perhaps not having Sony, Canon, and Panasonic's more advanced VLSI ASICs tech/fabs to reduce power requirements. This means when no AC is available, many large and expensive batteries are required. ARRI is kind of like Ferrari- top of the line, but with significant support costs to operate (don't ask what a brake job costs on a Ferrari with carbon-ceramic brakes (rotors & pads: $30K)).
It's interesting to note that most external recorders don't support the Pro H.264 codecs (10-12 bit, ALL-I and IPB). Video Devices just added H.264 support: http://www.videodevices.com/products/portable-video-recorders/pix-e5 . This is a welcome addition, however the bitrate is very low (10Mbps, probably 420 8-bit). So cameras like the C300 II with PDAF are currently in a sweet spot: near ARRI color and DR, but with PDAF, much lower energy/support costs, and super-high quality 50Mbps 422 10-bit 1080p. The FS7 is also pretty good with color vs. ARRI, has small H.264 files, but no PDAF (the next Sony will likely have this feature).
For low light shoots, the A7S II is currently an unmatched value (the Varicam/LT is probably the best pro-level low-light camera for the money right now).

Yes, the 1DX II's touch screen PDAF is very useful. The tracking is decent, though appears to use some form of feature/corner tracking such that when the object changes significantly, it completely loses track of the object. For example, I was filming a show dog walking on hind legs and spinning. After locking track on his face, when he fell down, the track was completely lost and focus immediately went to the background. This ruins the shot. Instead, the algorithm should default to tracking near the last track at the same spatial depth (the dog was still in focus- it should have stayed and picked up a new track based on the pixels already in focus). I write image processing algorithms for my day job, and I'm surprised they didn't implement it the right way.
We also use the C300 II, and I'm finding the 1DX II more useful for location shoots as it's much smaller and lighter than the C300 II (fully rigged with top and side handles). In 4K, the 1DX II is also a 1.33 crop vs 1.5 for the C300 II (1DX II is FF in 1080p). While the C300 II has Canon Log 2, which produces ARRI-like highlight handling (and along with other settings has similar colors so ARRI 3D LUTs can be used etc.), it cannot do touch-screen AF as with the 1DX II. However, it can do WIFI device touch AF with the WFT-E6A (the 1DX II requires the newer WFT-E8).
One nice thing about the C300 II is the 1080p is excellent, and the 50Mbps IPB is not only very small, but still looks great for low-camera motion shots. The 1DX II's 30Mbps 1080p is good, but not really 1080p (perhaps someone will do resolution tests) and has aliasing and Moire (note the C300 II has aliasing and Moire on very fine detail fabrics, for example. Something else to look forward to improvement for the next cameras (capturing at 8K (or more) and filtered down-sampling to reduce and/or eliminate aliasing).
In summary, the C300 II is a superior camera to the 1DC in every way (except perhaps size/stealth and crop factor), and we find the 1DX II to be a superior camera than the C300 II for certain types of shoots. The 1DC is still an amazing camera, however the 1DX II is superior in real-world shooting (remember shooting -1EV + using a log-like profile (Cinestyle or your own) + HTP gets you the same level of highlight detail as the 1DC in CLog (see earlier post in this thread showing the results in actual video with the 1DC). PDAF is indeed a massive help for focus, but still needs work (could be improved via firmware, though Canon doesn't do firmware updates very often). For the show dog example, manual focusing with a single operator (handheld) is nearly impossible as both zoom and focus must be done at the same time (with a balanced shoulder rig and lots of practice it should be possible, however will never be as good as a computer (when the software works properly ;)).

Yes, the 1DX II's touch screen PDAF is very useful. The tracking is decent, though appears to use some form of feature/corner tracking such that when the object changes significantly, it completely loses track of the object. For example, I was filming a show dog walking on hind legs and spinning. After locking track on his face, when he fell down, the track was completely lost and focus immediately went to the background. This ruins the shot. Instead, the algorithm should default to tracking near the last track at the same spatial depth (the dog was still in focus- it should have stayed and picked up a new track based on the pixels already in focus). I write image processing algorithms for my day job, and I'm surprised they didn't implement it the right way.
We also use the C300 II, and I'm finding the 1DX II more useful for location shoots as it's much smaller and lighter than the C300 II (fully rigged with top and side handles). In 4K, the 1DX II is also a 1.33 crop vs 1.5 for the C300 II (1DX II is FF in 1080p). While the C300 II has Canon Log 2, which produces ARRI-like highlight handling (and along with other settings has similar colors so ARRI 3D LUTs can be used etc.), it cannot do touch-screen AF as with the 1DX II. However, it can do WIFI device touch AF with the WFT-E6A (the 1DX II requires the newer WFT-E8).
One nice thing about the C300 II is the 1080p is excellent, and the 50Mbps IPB is not only very small, but still looks great for low-camera motion shots. The 1DX II's 30Mbps 1080p is good, but not really 1080p (perhaps someone will do resolution tests) and has aliasing and Moire (note the C300 II has aliasing and Moire on very fine detail fabrics, for example. Something else to look forward to improvement for the next cameras (capturing at 8K (or more) and filtered down-sampling to reduce and/or eliminate aliasing).
In summary, the C300 II is a superior camera to the 1DC in every way (except perhaps size/stealth and crop factor), and we find the 1DX II to be a superior camera than the C300 II for certain types of shoots. The 1DC is still an amazing camera, however the 1DX II is superior in real-world shooting (remember shooting -1EV + using a log-like profile (Cinestyle or your own) + HTP gets you the same level of highlight detail as the 1DC in CLog (see earlier post in this thread showing the results in actual video with the 1DC). PDAF is indeed a massive help for focus, but still needs work (could be improved via firmware, though Canon doesn't do firmware updates very often). For the show dog example, manual focusing with a single operator (handheld) is nearly impossible as both zoom and focus must be done at the same time (with a balanced shoulder rig and lots of practice it should be possible, however will never be as good as a computer (when the software works properly ;)).

The 1DX II can shoot very flat with either Cinestyle or a custom PP as I created here: 

You can edit this profile I created to match Cinestyle, for example add slightly more boost to the shadows, lower saturation, perhaps remove my red and yellow saturation pulls, etc. Getting 0-255 with the gamma curve editor is tricky: both mine and Cinestyle start above 0, so the resulting curve doesn't go 'crazy' (a Bezier curve continuity thing). Mine also drops the max value to less than 255 (could be 16-235-ish).
Definitely both my custom profile and Cinestyle raise shadows enough to see noise, and significantly pull highlights to reduce clipping. In my brief tests with CLog on the C300 II, highlights still clipped harshly. Only when using Canon Log 2 did highlight clipping reduce significantly. Super flat profiles work best with 10- or more bits. I see material ranging from TV/Netflix/AppleTV/AmazonPrime to movies where highlights are blown out- this happens even on the Alexa (though the transition tends to be nicer). The average viewer will never notice, and most film people focussed on story (and profit) could care less. "Our profits are down because the film's highlights weren't quite as smooth as <insert camera here>" is highly unlikely to ever be said in the real world.
Since the 1DX II is so clean in the shadows, as seen in Andree Markefor's video on this page, if we expose -1 EV (1 stop down), and use HTP and a custom flat profile, we can easily boost shadows +1EV in post without a major noise issue. Thus I don't see an issue with CLog not being available on the 1DX II vs. the 1DC. Note we shoot +1.7-2 EV on the A7S II to get the best results with SLog2. A minor issue is that -1 EV may be a little harder to see, however most people using the 1DX II will be using the amazing PDAF for focusing.
I would expect a 1DC II to have 10-bit and Canon Log 2, otherwise I don't see the value if the only difference is Clog (and still 8-bit). 1DC vs. 1DX II is a no brainer: 1DX II (since it can match CLog by using a custom flat profile + HTP + -1 EV exposure). That is if shooting 4K. 1080p is fairly crude by comparison (but fine for online delivery and perhaps 'B' shots).
 

Looks absolutely nice. Beats GH4 down to under ground.

Full 4K max quality JPG: http://www.brightland.com/t/JacquiTree2b4K.jpg

If you can stretch the budget, the Audix SCX-1 HC is great. We use them with the Schoeps CMC641 and they cut perfectly.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/242661-REG/Audix_SCX1_HC_SCX1_HC_Microphone.html

Full 4K max quality JPG: http://www.brightland.com/t/JacquiTree2b4K.jpg

4K 60p frame grab using my CLog emulation, colored in PP CC, then enhanced as I would a still in PS when going for max saturation/pop.

Full 4K max quality JPG: http://www.brightland.com/t/JacquiTree2b4K.jpg

4K 60p frame grab using my CLog emulation, colored in PP CC, then enhanced as I would a still in PS when going for max saturation/pop.

I prefer 1DC but for low budget VFX film 1DX II could be huge, it does in-camera lens distortion correction in addition to vignette and chromatic abberation correction, it basically takes a Canon EF lens into near Master Prime quality.

EOSHD has more views per month than dvxuser - and also trying to find and respond to gear for sale in a thread was incredibly difficult. 
This makes it much more organized.
Also it is more searchable now.

Agreed. I feel subforums can be beneficial and useful, when used right. 
But you need to strike a balance between too many and too few. Plus this balance is not static! It shifts and changes. A forum with a hundred users about stamp collection needs a different number of subforums to a forum with 100,000 users about marriage. Roughly speaking, the younger/smaller a forum is, the less subforums it should have. However as it grows, then it is ok to also grow the number of subforums, but at a slower rate than the growth of users! (don't want to have a relative oversupply of subforums to users.

Also, other features can work in place of subforums, such as tags/categories. For instance Reduser has a subforum for 3rd Party Gear Sales, but within it has various tags for items such as [LIGHTING] (I really really wish there was a tag for [AUDIO] as well!).

Imo, Don't start subforums, it is what kills forums in general. Just look at dvxuser.
Most people, me included never visit subforums. There was even a thread started to summarize the progress so we didn't have to visit the nx1 forum, and it was started by the owner...
And there isn't much stuff being sold anyway. 
Just IMO.

That's cool. I don't have time either as I'm currently juggling 3 jobs and a big pitch. Besides I want to be the one who guesses!

Thanks for the challenge Lintelfilm- sorry that's not something I can do right now. Why not try it yourself? You can guide the thread you start away from chaos ;). I did something similar recently when shooting the 8-bit 420 4K A7S II (downsampled to 1080p) against that 10-bit 422 C300 II and 8-bit 422 1DX II. For that studio environment, nobody could really tell which camera was which.

Dave's video is fine. 4K 8-bit 422 becomes pseudo 10-bit Luma 8-bit Chroma 444 1080p. 'pseudo' as the 4 8-bit sample's variation summed to 10-bit is helped by noise/dither. Everything seen everywhere by consumers except in the theater is 8-bit 420. Only filmmakers/hobbyists/specialists will ever see > 8-bit (first need a 10+ bit display, graphics card, and OS/app support). Dithering/noise helps reduce banding, and downsampling 4K to 1080p helps reduce noise. Regardless of the math/tech, the A7x II hang well against the FS5 in the real world, and that's what really matters. The FS5 is a dedicated video camera, so it has other advantages beyond image quality.

They match well under these conditions!
The left-hand camera has rendered the reds in the lipstick with more blue so I'd guess Sony, but it's evidently not so hard to match them when they're not being used at extremes, that's good news.

Jcs that's a good point. Those 3 pictures looks almost the same... There are differences of course, like colors, and resolution but hey, this proves there's no need to fight when speaking about cameras.
My preferred goes to the one on the center. If it is the A7SII i'm glad i chose that camera. And if it is not the A7SII, i'm happy too because everyone here can't tell which is which while being 100% affirmative...

if we look at the skin color first and second camera is the same brand. So i guess 1dxmii, c300mii, a7sii.
if we look at the contrast so a7sii, c300mii, 1dxmii. Really interesting test.

Just saw this video from Dugdale and thought the conclusions were interesting: 
https://youtu.be/rz_ZjdwtUQ8
I'm in the market for a new camera atm but is the FS5 really worth almost double the price of A7 Sii/Rii considering these findings?