Canon 1D X Mark II review part 1 - why superior colour means it's game over for my Sony A7S II

[Jan1]

“The winning part of shooting video on the X Pro2 is the colour science underpinning the video mode and JPEG engine. It’s simply the best. To the extent that Tina Turner would write a song about it.“ Fuji x pro2 review by Andrew. 

It would be a ruinous  thing to base buying decisions on your fast changing gut feelings. 

 

Best Jan

 

 

[Richard Bugg]

7 minutes ago, Jan1 said:

It would be a ruinous  thing to base buying decisions on your fast changing gut feelings. 

It's probably not a wise thing to lead yourself to ruination based on one person's opinion. The benefit of a review is that it kicks off meaningful discussion. It would be a pity to attack the person who took the time to start the discussion, simply because you might not agree with their opinions based on their own personal perspective.

[valery akos]

"within the blinds, the cyclope is the king"

[Richard Bugg]

7 minutes ago, valery akos said:

"within the blinds, the cyclope is the king"

I'm sorry but I use curtains.  I'm also no technical expert, though at times I've been professional, so I'm happy to look at a range of views and pleased that people make the effort to share their experiences from a variety of perspectives.

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, Steve Grogan said:

I agree with most people saying the video is garbage and doesn't back up the post at all. I have been following this blog for awhile and appreciate the various insights into to gear. Having said that this post seems very strange. Andrew has been a huge advocate for innovation, yet this post would say otherwise. All of of sudden he's against Sony? Andrew did you not get invited to participate in the FS7 Markii event and this is your way of expressing your anger? 

I did get an invite to the FS7 II event but couldn't go to Barcelona in the end due to getting ill.

This is not about disliking one company or liking another. It is about liking one camera over another.

You are free to have a different opinion about your cameras but it's a bit questionable attacking someone for being against your favourite brand. Is this the kind of hyper consumerist world we're living in now? Post-fact?

[Michal Gajdoš]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

I did get an invite to the FS7 II event but couldn't go to Barcelona in the end due to getting ill.

This is not about disliking one company or liking another. It is about liking one camera over another.

You are free to have a different opinion about your cameras but it's a bit questionable attacking someone for being against your favourite brand. Is this the kind of hyper consumerist world we're living in now? Post-fact?

No definitely not, however this blog was praised for being honest. Giving ideas & tips about how to shoot amazing videos with low budget ILCS and vintage lenses. Not to mention many technical posts.

Now having read this weird kinky shit about super expensive ancient zero innovation dinosaur of camera that produces flaterring color compared to another is just meh, because u feel that way, yeH that is just "meh"

Had you been praising canon all along i guess we'd be all still shotting with clumsy dlsrs and sony would still try to compete with their a mount line...

[joema]

Re the article statement: "Canon IS not as effective as Panasonic’s sensor-based 5 axis image stabilisation and Dual IS"

Having shot many hours of documentary video on both 5D Mark III using 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the A7RII using 28-135 PZ cinema lens, that is not my experience (with Sony). In general I found the lens-based Canon OIS is overall better than the Sony 5-axis system, at least using the above lenses at similar focal lengths.

The Canon system only stabilizes pitch and yaw, whereas Sony splits the burden between sensor which does roll+translation and the lens doing pitch and yaw. Despite this my informal video tests show I can hand-hold steadier video with the Canon.

Maybe one factor is I'm usually using Super35 on the A7RII and maybe that somehow degrades stabilization. I have never read any article or review analyzing the effect of Super35 on Sony's 5-axis system, but it seems to not work as well in that case.

The Canon with a Zacuto EVF was just a superb video machine since that big eye cup formed a 3rd contact point. Unfortunately it, the HDMI cable and brackets were unwieldy and delicate in the field. If the 1DX II and AF system can avoid this, that is great. 

I especially appreciate your points about needing stills and video from one camera. My documentary group is in a similar situation and we often use mirrorless or DSLRs for this reason.

I also had the same experience regarding color. I have to work harder in post to get the look I want from the Sony, whereas the 5D3 content looked good out of the camera. Overall I'm still happier with the Sony since the total strengths outweigh the weaknesses (for me), but I often wish the color was like Canon.

[Geoff CB]

2 hours ago, joema said:

Re the article statement: "Canon IS not as effective as Panasonic’s sensor-based 5 axis image stabilisation and Dual IS"

Having shot many hours of documentary video on both 5D Mark III using 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the A7RII using 28-135 PZ cinema lens, that is not my experience (with Sony). In general I found the lens-based Canon OIS is overall better than the Sony 5-axis system, at least using the above lenses at similar focal lengths.

The Canon system only stabilizes pitch and yaw, whereas Sony splits the burden between sensor which does roll+translation and the lens doing pitch and yaw. Despite this my informal video tests show I can hand-hold steadier video with the Canon.

Maybe one factor is I'm usually using Super35 on the A7RII and maybe that somehow degrades stabilization. I have never read any article or review analyzing the effect of Super35 on Sony's 5-axis system, but it seems to not work as well in that case.

The Canon with a Zacuto EVF was just a superb video machine since that big eye cup formed a 3rd contact point. Unfortunately it, the HDMI cable and brackets were unwieldy and delicate in the field. If the 1DX II and AF system can avoid this, that is great. 

I especially appreciate your points about needing stills and video from one camera. My documentary group is in a similar situation and we often use mirrorless or DSLRs for this reason.

I also had the same experience regarding color. I have to work harder in post to get the look I want from the Sony, whereas the 5D3 content looked good out of the camera. Overall I'm still happier with the Sony since the total strengths outweigh the weaknesses (for me), but I often wish the color was like Canon.

Andrew is talking about panasonic's stabilization, not Sony's. Though I do prefer the Full frame stabilization on my A7r II over the Super 35 stabilization, which seems to act more aggressive. May also be a side effect of the poor rolling shutter in Super 35 mode compared to FF.

[OliKMIA]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You are free to have a different opinion about your cameras but it's a bit questionable attacking someone for being against your favourite brand.

Hi Andrew. I totally understand your point of view and I find this website very interesting. Even though I'm still "eating" to regular tables such as DPReview and other mainstream websites, picking the dish I like and ignoring the rest, I'm always curious to check your food. I know that your house will be different, a bit "bi-polar" sometime but always refreshing, free of any marketing interest and willing to be commercially incorrect in this huge ocean of product placement and influencers that internet has become.

For me Canon got a few interesting features (colors, DPAF) but the Cons are just too much for the price. However I have no religion in terms of gears. As long as you are comfortable with your Canon and others are satisfied with Sony or Pana, I totally respect that and will not do any proselytism.

That being said, I'm kind of confused by your Spanish video here. Looks like a video I could have made in 2 days back in the days when I started with my T3i. I mean the contrast, expo, colors, cuts and all that. I'm not attacking your skills, I'm assuming you make a living out of it and you surely have way more experience and knowledge than me but showing this type of video to illustrate a high end DSLR review is surprising. Perhaps this is what people are trying to say here.

 

 

[ND64]

5 hours ago, joema said:

Re the article statement: "Canon IS not as effective as Panasonic’s sensor-based 5 axis image stabilisation and Dual IS"

Having shot many hours of documentary video on both 5D Mark III using 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the A7RII using 28-135 PZ cinema lens, that is not my experience (with Sony). In general I found the lens-based Canon OIS is overall better than the Sony 5-axis system, at least using the above lenses at similar focal lengths.

The Canon system only stabilizes pitch and yaw, whereas Sony splits the burden between sensor which does roll+translation and the lens doing pitch and yaw. Despite this my informal video tests show I can hand-hold steadier video with the Canon.

Maybe one factor is I'm usually using Super35 on the A7RII and maybe that somehow degrades stabilization. I have never read any article or review analyzing the effect of Super35 on Sony's 5-axis system, but it seems to not work as well in that case.

in tele ranges, optical IS works way better. Even Olympus had to admit that. 

1 hour ago, OliKMIA said:

Hi Andrew. I totally understand your point of view and I find this website very interesting. Even though I'm still "eating" to regular tables such as DPReview and other mainstream websites, picking the dish I like and ignoring the rest, I'm always curious to check your food. I know that your house will be different, a bit "bi-polar" sometime but always refreshing, free of any marketing interest and willing to be commercially incorrect in this huge ocean of product placement and influencers that internet has become.

For me Canon got a few interesting features (colors, DPAF) but the Cons are just too much for the price. However I have no religion in terms of gears. As long as you are comfortable with your Canon and others are satisfied with Sony or Pana, I totally respect that and will not do any proselytism.

That being said, I'm kind of confused by your Spanish video here. Looks like a video I could have made in 2 days back in the days when I started with my T3i. I mean the contrast, expo, colors, cuts and all that. I'm not attacking your skills, I'm assuming you make a living out of it and you surely have way more experience and knowledge than me but showing this type of video to illustrate a high end DSLR review is surprising. Perhaps this is what people are trying to say here.

 

 

You need to see "The Forbidden Room" movie. Form, determines the image quality, not the other way around.

[gt3rs]

18 hours ago, Michal Gajdoš said:

The good things first :

1.finally an article about a camera comparison with a video, haven't seen that in a while here.

2. Seems like a good combo (good stills camera with decent video, however lacking resolution.) thought for the price it should be, and that's about it with good points.

the bad :

1. PRICE, for real ? are we seriously even considering to compare a 6000+ camera to a 2400 one ? the price is just astronomical (people buy cars for their families for this price)

2. easy pleasant COLOR - :D this made me laugh. So you are saying that this camera gives you awesome color straight out of the box, no need to edit, yeah perfect, the thing is I dont know any pc (under another 5000)  that would even be able to edit that mjpeg 500mbps shit. AND this is a subjective matter. Andrew you forgot to mention that Chris and Jordan specifically said that many many times over in the view that this is purely subjective. Moreover they are testing sub 2000 cameras with some being much less. Honestly i disliked the color in that video, oversaturated, punchy, crushed blacks, frankly this video is far from pleasing on account of colors and DR. bleh but that is just me. some may love unnatural red over saturated punchy color. 

3. DR - do you honestly think that this footage with the edit you did has better DR than a7s ... suddenly it's no issue ? the footage looks like it's from a 7d.

4. Crop factor 1.3 IS NOT full frame. Everyone being disappointed  by 1.6-1.7 on 5d IV and 1.3 on a 6000 body is okay ? please.

The awful:

5. That thing is enormous. good luck stabilizing that. (another rise in costs)

6. No articulating screen

7. No focus peaking on a body for 6000 ? lol

8. 8bit for 6000 ? lol

9. Codec

I mean, if anyone is doing sports photography and can justify the price, go for it sure, for video ? you'll be back to ILCS or real 10bit cameras in few weeks after using this dinosaur 

oh and i forgot , the ugly :

10. EF mount

Cheers, meant no offense thanks for taking time to review, keep them coming !!! 

mickey

Is it better the A7SII or the 1Dx II? It depends and some will find one better than the other but commenting on something that you don’t know and never used is not a good idea. Andrew was very against the 1DxII and now has one and he likes it, Philip Bloom was also skeptic and now has one and he really like it and so on…

Currently the 1dx II is the only DSLR/Mirrorless class camera to do 4k 60p 4:2:2 and with an extremely good video AF. It may or may not matter for you but for someone like me it is a life saver. Will the next Sony have the same or better spec probably yes but is not there yet.

Now to some nonsense that you have written:

Like the needs of a 5000 usd PC to edit 4k MJPEG files or “shit” as you call it.... does it comes from your experience of every day working with this files right? Because I do it almost every day and I can tell you that 4k 30p is doable in realtime in Resolve with a 1500 usd notebook and a 2000 usd PC can do real-time 4k 60p editing and grading with no transcoding or proxy.

I have already posted here the discussion around formats:

Anyway if you want high quality files be ready to have high bitrates… DJI new 4/3 camera has the minimum bitrate at 4k 30p in prores at 900 Mbits per seconds! Blackmagic at 492 Mbits 4k 25p in prores, C700 XF AVC is 440 Mbits at 4k 30p. Pro people are used to these size and RAW is even on another leauge.

Stabilizing what you call dinosaurs is super easy, just use one of the most popular gimbals from a Ronin M/MX, Letus Helix Jr or any Movi. I use every week the 1DX II on a Ronin M and I can shoot while moving even on rollerblades with a 50mm at F1.2 without a focus puller as one man band, do it with your super light Sony if you can. Is it worth the 3000 usd more than the Sony? For some people yes for some no. For some it will generate more money so they can buy a better car from some other is too much and they will buy a crappy car with the 3000 saved.

The latest scoop is that Canon will drop the EF mount from their camera because the lens selection is too week and nobody in the industry is adopting the EF mount. In fact Red, Canon C series, Panasonic and Balackmagic have all agreed to not offer the EF mount on their top of the line cinema cameras anymore and to offer the Sony one instead:-)

Canon and Sony move at different pace and both innovate and stagnate. Canon was the first to introduce a good HD video with the 5DII, the first to do 4k in a DSLR the first to do 4k 60p 4:2:2 in a DSLR and the first to make autofocus really work for video. So yes is a dinosaur but it moves well just not at your wished price.

At the end I wonder why people criticize so much cameras that they never have used?

Again is the 1dx II better than the A7SII? In some area yes and some not and for some people some aspects are more important than others. Even a Gopro  can be better than an Alexa in some aspects. But please do not misinform people about something that you don’t use regularly or even worst not even have touch in your life.

 

[themartist]

12 hours ago, Richard Bugg said:

I'm not sure that wether or not someone commercialises their work is particularly relevant, if that's what you meant. I have seen low quality output from people who charge for what they do, high quality output from people who do not, and a lot of stuff in between. So I'm not sure that commercialising your work is a necessary pre-condition for being able to express an opinion. Nor is it necessarily a good indicator of quality. Hence, not particularly relevant.

 

 

I agree with you in part. But a professional will normally spend far more time researching, filming, editing, experimenting, spending money and effort on paid gigs than a hobbyist who plays around with their toys. The talented amateur hobbyists who create awesome videos... normally become Pros. The common denominator is both talent and time spent on the craft.

For me the biggest issue I have with the kind of cameras I can afford is rolling shutter. Out of camera color, dynamic range, 4K is generally not an issue for me ... GH4, A7s or Canon Mark iii... I'm happy with all of the results I get. I've said it many times before... and I'll say it again. My talent has not caught up with available and affordable technology yet... so you won't hear complaints from me. 

For hobbyists to be able to easily afford a $6000 camera is a bit of a slap in the face to pros who are producing work on lesser cameras without complaining. Not calling Andrew a hobbyist by any mean, because he has done paid gigs and EOSHD has become his profession... so there is tremendous talent and time spent on his part. But the article is either a bit click bait or bipolar for my liking...

[Oliver Daniel]

4 minutes ago, themartist said:

I agree with you in part. But a professional will normally spend far more time researching, filming, editing, experimenting, spending money and effort on paid gigs than a hobbyist who plays around with their toys. The talented amateur hobbyists who create awesome videos... normally become Pros. The common denominator is both talent and time spent on the craft.

For me the biggest issue I have with the kind of cameras I can afford is rolling shutter. Out of camera color, dynamic range, 4K is generally not an issue for me ... GH4, A7s or Canon Mark iii... I'm happy with all of the results I get. I've said it many times before... and I'll say it again. My talent has not caught up with available and affordable technology yet... so you won't hear complaints from me. 

For hobbyists to be able to easily afford a $6000 camera is a bit of a slap in the face to pros who are producing work on lesser cameras without complaining. Not calling Andrew a hobbyist by any mean, because he has done paid gigs and EOSHD has become his profession... so there is tremendous talent and time spent on his part. But the article is either a bit click bait or bipolar for my liking...

While I feel the article is not on form (we're all human, I think), those that question Andrew's filmmaking ability seem to forget that whatever he is doing, it's obviously working as he's able to make a living off EOSHD. That to me is a very good business man.  

I think this camera race is something to brush aside at the moment. The options we have now are ridiculous - I think most would benefit from sticking to their current cameras, ignoring the next batch of camera releases and invest money into lighting, camera movement, lenses and essential video education (loads of stuff out there like Shane Hurlbut). 

I hope Andrew sticks to the 1DX II, reviews cameras here and there and we see more of an emphasis on other areas. Although that might not be a good business decision, as loads of people go nuts over cameras. The Panasonic GH7 will be announced with an auto Hollywood mode so we don't have to make effort anymore, and the internet will literally set on fire (when they find out the auto Hollywood mode is on a 2 second buffer and fills a 1TB SD card instantly). 

[Arikhan]

@DPC

Quote

It is relevant in that professionals have a skill set that clients are willing to pay for

The main asset of these "professionals" is sales: saling their clients their style to shoot, compose, color science, etc. Look @DPC and @Richard Bugg, there are tons of PAID bullshit videos/films out there. Because the film companies found someone to pay for it, these are not necessarly good films. First point....second point, could you define "good filmic work"? I think there are thousands of opinions on this...

Let me give you an example: The so called "cinematic look" (Grading, shallow DOF, etc.) is not a big point in the eyes of many GERMAN clients. Many clients simply don't care about it. Many German corporate clients care about SHARPNESS and contrast - the same they care about when watching TV....OK, there might be some, who can be "convinced" to move to a Hollywood look. But generally they don't care...

So, filming companies who do much paid work are good sales people. There are so many independent (and in my eyes talented) filmmakers all over the world, who never sale a piece of their work...Economical success is not the same as successful filmic work...

Now on the 1DX II: I like this camera, but it's not affordable for me. It's a perfect still camera for almost all purposes (excepting highest resolution needs), unbeaten in sports photography, top notch in low light, well build, usable, rugged, top ergonomics. I know many journalists / documentary and narrative workers who use it. One of them is a good friend of mine and he is editing the Canon 4K footage on a i7 1.900,- Euro PC. So what? If you are talking about professionalism, you should consider, that working with this kind of files is normal (RAW eg). The fact, that this workflow might not be affordable for many enthusiasts like me, does not mean, that this is a bad codec. You just need some computing power for editing, but this is absolutely normal for people working on higher level or with RAW...

The DPAF is amazing. Even if some "professionals" claim, in professional work there is "no need" for a excellent AF. There is one. And some professionals use it excessively. Not everyone shooting films has a brigade of focus pullers or can shoot a scene over days ad ultimo...The excellent DPAF of the 1DX II is just a very useful tool, helping shooters to save money...

[kepache]

it seems to me that complaints about the codec not being editable come from people who have never touched the camera. i can edit that 500 mbit/s footage on my i5 (!), gtx770, 8gb (!) ram pc in realtime. i even edit it on my 13'' macbook pro in final cut using proxies with zero lag. 

[Arikhan]

@kepache

Premiere or Davinci Resolve?

Though I see problems in archiving the footage...OK, that's not a problem: You just have to buy enough storage media, if you shoot hours of footage... ;-)

[Richard Bugg]

2 hours ago, themartist said:

I agree with you in part. But a professional will normally spend far more time researching, filming, editing, experimenting, spending money and effort on paid gigs than a hobbyist who plays around with their toys. The talented amateur hobbyists who create awesome videos... normally become Pros. The common denominator is both talent and time spent on the craft

Thanks themartist, and others. As you suggest there may be a correlation between getting paid producing video content and having technical knowledge and being able to formulate a useful technical opinion, but that is not necessarily the case. Therefore it is probably more useful to look at the actual substance of the opinion, the premises upon which the opinion is based, the methodology used, the results from which the conclusions are based, how the reported results compare with other similar results and so on, rather than on some poor proxy, such as  that person's business income, or even the quality of their artistic work. Many working artists are not particularly technical and may only know the basics of how their camera functions on the way to producing great work that sells well. Conversely, if I'm after technical analysis, I'd tend to look to someone who has good technical knowledge. In that case I don't really care about their artistic ability, or wether they make money selling photos or videos. Does anyone care what sort of images the people at DXOMARK or lens rentals or Thom Hogan produce when reading their reviews. I don't. 

[Bioskop.Inc]

2 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I think this camera race is something to brush aside at the moment. The options we have now are ridiculous - I think most would benefit from sticking to their current cameras, ignoring the next batch of camera releases and invest money into lighting, camera movement, lenses and essential video education (loads of stuff out there like Shane Hurlbut). 

Exactly this & only this.

Doesn't matter if you're a professional or an amateur, buy a Canon or a Sony, want a hybid or a dedicated camera. The reason you're interested in all this lovely, and sometimes not so lovely, tech is that you want to create/produce something - regardless of whether you make money out of it or not.

However, there does seem to be a rise in people who don't want to sit down for 5mins and learn how to use what they've bought. Yes, you're not going to be an amazing photographer/filmmaker over night, it takes time & a lot of practice. So, don't ever blame the tools, because that isn't the problem. If you've used enough cameras, you can spend a few days with something new, do your tests (these are YOUR tests, not someone elses & should fit YOUR chosen style), then know where you stand (limitations etc.) & away you go.

So, now I've re-thought Andrew's post & examples: firstly, he has the guts to put stuff on line for the whole world to see, and that takes courage; secondly, the Canon vs. Sony picture comparison might need re-thinking or re-interpreting. Now i'm not defending anyone, but having thought about it for a while, this is the conclusion I've come to. The Sony pic is just an average sterile thing, no complaints, looks fine, but is boring as hell - it has ZERO character! The Canon pic made me laugh at first and then the more I looked at it the more I realised that it wasn't this bland sterile, boring thing - it has character, it isn't perfect & that's why it stands out compared to the Sony pic. We all looked at the Sony pic & thought perfect, but who really wants to sit there and produce the same thing that everyone else is producing? How are you ever going to be your own person, with your own tastes and vision if you just tag along with the rest of the sheep?

[Andrew Reid]

To those critics in this thread - that you see my opinions as unworthy because I'm not inside the film industry doesn't surprise me, because most of the same people just voted for a US president based on how rich he was. It's a bit of a sad situation in 2016 where such a consumerist mindset exists that only pros shooting paid gigs are considered experts. Time and time again in Berlin I have turned down paid work to focus on my own creative projects and self-employment. It's my choice. EOSHD has been a success. I could have been slaving away, climbing the ladder professionally shooting one advert after another and being bossed around by clueless clients. Again, I have chosen a different path. I'd much rather be doing my own thing day in day out. It doesn't take much to click through to Vimeo and see my last 5 years of cinematography and personal work. And even if that isn't to your taste, your taste is not the universal blueprint by which everything film-related is judged.

This article comes from the heart. Maybe I didn't get across the capabilities of the 1D X Mark II in one go, maybe I'm rusty. The footage isn't my best. It is 120fps with a heavily stylised grade shot handheld on holiday. It isn't meant to be Citizen Kane. It was just to show the 120fps. The way some people are going on about the image quality of that video as some way indicative of the overall quality from the 1D X Mark II is really stupid. The 4K looks very different. That is coming next in part 2. I also have shot with the X-T2 and G80. Great alternatives for less money. The 1D X Mark II was meant as a replacement for my 1D C and it succeeds in doing that. I paid £5k for the 1D C used back at the start of 2015 and even though it came out in 2012 the image is still better than the A7S II, Sony FS5, etc. No it is not a £500 camera. I never said it was good value for money in that respect. Pretty obvious really.

The skintones -

I think side by side with the Sony picture, the Canon one looks too extreme and you cannot really judge either image from the web or blog post page.

In isolation at full 20MP resolution on a large print or a large 4K monitor, the Canon looks more natural and true to nature, whereas the Sony looks dead. Also the Canon flatters skin, whereas the Sony exaggerates any imperfections even on a very good looking subject. See the following 2.8K JPEGs instead, full screen -

[Django]

I'd just like to add you don't have to be a gourmet chef to be a food critique or a pro athlete to commentate sports. I fully trust Andrews expertise in the subject.

Nevertheless this is his blog and these are just his subjective views.  Everybody is free to agree / disagree with him but I think that's what most people have always liked about this place. It feels genuine no matter how harsh the critique. Most other places always have this safe tone that feels somewhat "sponsored".

I think what caught a lot of people off-guard and perhaps even got some folks heated is the sudden "switch" back to Canon. It's true that up until recently Andrew had pretty harsh views on Canon and was kind of becoming a Sony guy.. which really only reflected what many videographers were feeling and shifting towards. But now with the 1DX2/5D4 Canon are back in the game and it is Sony who at the moment seems to be catching flack as they are taking baby steps in their mirrorless line-up and still need to address a number of issues (battery life, ergonomics, AF..).. so it's just the way the industry grows shifting back & forth..