To Buy, Or Not To Buy: The Canon 1DX mk II

[gt3rs]

13 hours ago, Matthew19 said:

Wait, where did this go on sale? I can't even find a used one!

In Switzerland it was 370 usd at 1dx II launch... now is ca. 430 usd.... It is the European model E8B but I really have no idea why is cheaper here... because the 1dx II is 150 usd more expensive here than in the US.

Still too expensive for what it is because it is really just a wifi adapter with no logic because if you use the Ethernet port on the camera you have all the functionality available.

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

6 hours ago, sam said:

Ive had the hot pixel issue on the 1dc and unfortunately, none of the regular tricks work. The only way to fix it is to send it to Canon.  I havent had any further hot pixels since it was serviced, but, after comparing image quality to my F35, I only use it when the F35 wont fit!   Test the 1dxii by recording for around 20 minutes in a warmish room with the lens cap on and then with a minute to go, record through multiple iso settings. Upscale footage slightly and check for discolored pixels.

The f35 is amazing. But it's also bigger and more expensive and has no DPAF. But the IQ and motion are amazing.

[Oliver Daniel]

11 hours ago, Matthew19 said:

I was thinking the other night, the 1DXII is unique right now. Nothing can do what it can at the moment : 1.3x sensor with Canon color, 4k with no overheating and autofocus (and that excludes the 4k 60fps and 120fps 1080p)
C300 II - crop sensor, large size
c100 II - 1080p
5div - 1.7x crop
1DC - no autofocus, no slow mo
A7sII - FF but sony colors, 4k overheating
a6300 - sony colors, 4k overheating
nx1 - crop, funny colors
gh4 - crop, autofocus 

Now there are lots of things to like about every one of those cameras. They are all fantastic really, but the 1DXII has an edge in several areas along with some downsides, but aside from the massive file sizes I'm happy with this thing. 
 

 

This is why I'm so close to pulling the trigger. There's nothing else out there quite like it. 

People say the big disadvantage is the codec. It's big and dated. However, it's data rich and not overly crippled, plus I'd just transcode straight from the cards to ProRes anyway. I've been shooting 1080p RAW on the X5R and handled it pretty well. 

[Matthew19]

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

In Switzerland it was 370 usd at 1dx II launch... now is ca. 430 usd.... It is the European model E8B but I really have no idea why is cheaper here... because the 1dx II is 150 usd more expensive here than in the US.

Still too expensive for what it is because it is really just a wifi adapter with no logic because if you use the Ethernet port on the camera you have all the functionality available.

 

Just tested going out from ethernet to usb adapter and then USB to lighting adapter to get it into iphone. Doesn't work but i think its because of the Camera Connect app. I did it through a powered USB hub and the camera gave me an IP address to use but I have no idea what to do with that. 

[gt3rs]

8 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

People say the big disadvantage is the codec. It's big and dated. However, it's data rich and not overly crippled, plus I'd just transcode straight from the cards to ProRes anyway. I've been shooting 1080p RAW on the X5R and handled it pretty well. 

In my opinion the codec is not such a disadvantage, yes prores or DNxHR would be even better but the size would be similar. Resolve now supports very well the MJPEG so you can edit directly without transcoding. Scrubbing is extremely fast (make sense is not a LGOP codec) and on a good machine real-time edit and playback is possible. On a basic gaming PC, i7 6700, RX 480 8 GB Vram, 16 GB Ram and an SSD you can edit 4k 60p plus some basic grading, even directly from the CFast card, in real time. As comparison the 4k 60p 100 Mbits h.264 from Phantom 4 Pro in Resolve is just dam slow, scrubbing is so slow that you want to transcode it.

So if you are a Resolve user no need to transcode at least on a PC.

[photographer-at-large]

 

[tomekk]

On 12/13/2016 at 3:35 AM, sam said:

  Test the 1dxii by recording for around 20 minutes in a warmish room with the lens cap on and then with a minute to go, record through multiple iso settings. Upscale footage slightly and check for discolored pixels.

It would be nice if someone could test this. JCS, Andrew?

[Matthew19]

If anyone needs further convincing of the 1dxII - put on a diaper and watch this in 4K. 

https://vimeo.com/192756025

[Oliver Daniel]

9 hours ago, Matthew19 said:

If anyone needs further convincing of the 1dxII - put on a diaper and watch this in 4K. 

https://vimeo.com/192756025

Seen this. 

Its a rather marvellous video with some great examples on the strength of the DPAF. The 4K from this camera looks brilliant. 

I'm at that stage where I've priced up the camera package and I'm wondering whether to pull the trigger. Those damn memory cards!!! So expensive. 

The FS5 is an important camera to me, and I'll use it on many jobs. Looking to upgrade it to the Inferno recording options. It has the slo-mo, Slog, lovely audio and ergonomics. 

The reason for the 1DX II is not only the stills, but the power of that 4k50fps DPAF on a gimbal and motion control slider. Camera movement is very important. 

I guess the stumbling block is whether I should save my money and soup up the FS5 as planned, grab an 80d for stills and get on with it. (Or not.... because, erm, cameras!!). 

 

[Jimmy]

That video does look stunning.

Go for it Oliver! Seems like an almost perfect tool for music videos.

[Davey]

10 hours ago, Matthew19 said:

If anyone needs further convincing of the 1dxII - put on a diaper and watch this in 4K. 

https://vimeo.com/192756025

If that doesn't win Staff Pick for the year then there is something wrong.

[austinchimp]

I've previously owned the 1DC and sold it for a A7Rii and now I'm working outside and with water a lot I'm thinking about moving back to a 1DC mkii. I also own an Ursa Mini 4.6k and here are my (long) thoughts. 

Despite not having any video assist tools like peaking, zebras etc I always find shooting with Canon quite easy, maybe it's a purer shooting experience - expose for what you see and go. The build and feel is also exceptional compared to Sony and Panasonic. I also shoot stills and the professional level Canon cameras are the best tool I've used. The only thing I wish I could take from the Sonys is silent shooting for more intimate moments. 

The issue I had with Canon is purely image quality, and that's what holds me back from going back.

First up their 1080p is STILL an embarrassment. It looks like poor quality 720p uprezzed, blurred, and then sharpened. Seeing it when these days we're used to beautiful full hd gives me the feeling of nails down a chalk board.

The second issue I have, which is also key for me is the lack of dynamic range. Those harsh burnt highlights and crushed noisy shadows just give it away and haven't progressed much since the 5d mkii. The Fuji X-t2 looks to have similar dynamic range but deals with it much more pleasantly.

Much as good content shot on the 1dx2 looks fantastic, it all has that harsh look to it which works great for sports but less well for anything else. A lot of the best 1dx2 clips have been shot in carefully controlled or restricted dynamic range environments I feel. The clip 'My Son' is fantastic but the pure white clipped highlights bother me and give it away as shot on a DSLR.

For me the modern high end aesthetic is about great colour (which canon has) and soft organic dynamic range (which they do not in their DSLR cameras).

Even the 1DC I found to be slightly harsh. I'm pretty sure there's some quite aggressive sharpening going on in all Canon image processors within their still cameras and it really turns me off the image. 

I would love to be wrong on this if somebody could show me how to get Alexa or Sony type creaminess from a Canon. I know I'm asking a lot, but when you're talking about a camera the price of the 1dx2 I think you're entitled to be picky.

I know it's not a fair comparison but in terms of creating a 'cinematic' image the Ursa Mini blows it out of the water with no effort at all. But then it's not something I can carry out on the water with me and shoot still with..

I'm not trying to moan or criticise, it's obviously a fantastic camera and different tools for different usages, but I wanted to articulate my own internal struggle with Canon cameras right now.

If this camera had decent 1080p and better dynamic range I'd be on it like a shot, as would many of you I bet. Thanks for reading.

 

 

 

 

[Oliver Daniel]

2 hours ago, austinchimp said:

I've previously owned the 1DC and sold it for a A7Rii and now I'm working outside and with water a lot I'm thinking about moving back to a 1DC mkii. I also own an Ursa Mini 4.6k and here are my (long) thoughts. 

Despite not having any video assist tools like peaking, zebras etc I always find shooting with Canon quite easy, maybe it's a purer shooting experience - expose for what you see and go. The build and feel is also exceptional compared to Sony and Panasonic. I also shoot stills and the professional level Canon cameras are the best tool I've used. The only thing I wish I could take from the Sonys is silent shooting for more intimate moments. 

The issue I had with Canon is purely image quality, and that's what holds me back from going back.

First up their 1080p is STILL an embarrassment. It looks like poor quality 720p uprezzed, blurred, and then sharpened. Seeing it when these days we're used to beautiful full hd gives me the feeling of nails down a chalk board.

The second issue I have, which is also key for me is the lack of dynamic range. Those harsh burnt highlights and crushed noisy shadows just give it away and haven't progressed much since the 5d mkii. The Fuji X-t2 looks to have similar dynamic range but deals with it much more pleasantly.

Much as good content shot on the 1dx2 looks fantastic, it all has that harsh look to it which works great for sports but less well for anything else. A lot of the best 1dx2 clips have been shot in carefully controlled or restricted dynamic range environments I feel. The clip 'My Son' is fantastic but the pure white clipped highlights bother me and give it away as shot on a DSLR.

For me the modern high end aesthetic is about great colour (which canon has) and soft organic dynamic range (which they do not in their DSLR cameras).

Even the 1DC I found to be slightly harsh. I'm pretty sure there's some quite aggressive sharpening going on in all Canon image processors within their still cameras and it really turns me off the image. 

I would love to be wrong on this if somebody could show me how to get Alexa or Sony type creaminess from a Canon. I know I'm asking a lot, but when you're talking about a camera the price of the 1dx2 I think you're entitled to be picky.

I know it's not a fair comparison but in terms of creating a 'cinematic' image the Ursa Mini blows it out of the water with no effort at all. But then it's not something I can carry out on the water with me and shoot still with..

I'm not trying to moan or criticise, it's obviously a fantastic camera and different tools for different usages, but I wanted to articulate my own internal struggle with Canon cameras right now.

If this camera had decent 1080p and better dynamic range I'd be on it like a shot, as would many of you I bet. Thanks for reading.

 

 

 

 

You have a point. 

The lack of genuine CLOG in this camera stopped me from buying it at first, however some users have got great results from the EOSHD and James Miller profiles. MySon may of look even better if they used one of these. 

Most of the examples on the web are from wedding videographers, or photographers trying out the video features. They don't know how to grade for a cinematic image, and don't know how to combat exposure issues when shooting. 

A really good example of the 1DX II is a video called Woodland on Vimeo. They used Millers CLOG, yet Ivwould of used a sheet of diffuser or something to block out the harsh sunlight on some shots. Color is fantastic. 

 

[austinchimp]

3 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

A really good example of the 1DX II is a video called Woodland on Vimeo. They used Millers CLOG, yet Ivwould of used a sheet of diffuser or something to block out the harsh sunlight on some shots. Color is fantastic. 

 

I'm not actually a big fan of the colour in that video, seems like a Miller-esque / Bloom-esque grade with raised blacks and washed out colours, but I will agree they handled the dynamic range and highlights quite well with maybe the possible exception of the opening shot.

I would argue that the strength of the 1DX m2 is not its image, but it's ergonomics and convenience if you need to shoot outdoors, quickly, and shoot stills at the same time. If you're shooting with a crew or in controlled conditions where you can grade the image after I would expect the FS5 or even a A7Sii to deliver a more cinematic and commercially current look. I'm just kind of playing Devil's advocate here as you seem to be somebody who cares about dynamic range and a cinematic look, which you might lose out on a bit with the 1DX as opposed to the gear you've been used to using. That's my opinion.

[Matthew19]

I knew I recognized one of the guys in MySon! Bloom visited this same village with the fs7 and a speedbooster 2 years earlier. If you want to compare images of the same folks with the 1DXII vs Fs7 just watch each these. Both make wonderful images.



FS7 : 

and 1dxII again : 

 

[Andrew Reid]

The most filmed tribesmen of the wilderness, ever.

[pat1]

16 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

You have a point. 

The lack of genuine CLOG in this camera stopped me from buying it at first, however some users have got great results from the EOSHD and James Miller profiles. MySon may of look even better if they used one of these. 

Most of the examples on the web are from wedding videographers, or photographers trying out the video features. They don't know how to grade for a cinematic image, and don't know how to combat exposure issues when shooting. 

A really good example of the 1DX II is a video called Woodland on Vimeo. They used Millers CLOG, yet Ivwould of used a sheet of diffuser or something to block out the harsh sunlight on some shots. Color is fantastic. 

 

 

I'm not sure whether that was meant to be ironic or not?

 

 

[Oliver Daniel]

2 hours ago, pat1 said:

 

I'm not sure whether that was meant to be ironic or not?

 

 

Not sure what you mean. I personally like the style in this piece. Not essentially the style I'd go for. 

14 hours ago, austinchimp said:

I'm not actually a big fan of the colour in that video, seems like a Miller-esque / Bloom-esque grade with raised blacks and washed out colours, but I will agree they handled the dynamic range and highlights quite well with maybe the possible exception of the opening shot.

I would argue that the strength of the 1DX m2 is not its image, but it's ergonomics and convenience if you need to shoot outdoors, quickly, and shoot stills at the same time. If you're shooting with a crew or in controlled conditions where you can grade the image after I would expect the FS5 or even a A7Sii to deliver a more cinematic and commercially current look. I'm just kind of playing Devil's advocate here as you seem to be somebody who cares about dynamic range and a cinematic look, which you might lose out on a bit with the 1DX as opposed to the gear you've been used to using. That's my opinion.

You have some good points. 

I'm rather used to Sony Slog and I really like it, even though it can be a tough cookie to deal with. 

I know what you mean regarding the "Bloom/Miller" look (is that even a thing?), however I'd argue they have used the correct grade here with the woodland color and vintage camera prop. There's a richness beneath that washed out layer. 

Color is subjective, and on this forum, I know that a lot of users put great color down to "accurate" color (from examples posted). I'm more of a stylised color guy - I like my spot-on colors but with a sheen of character - whether that's a neon wash or vintage film, whatever helps the piece. 

My ideal image is really the Ursa Mini 4.6. The reason I don't have this camera is down to frame rates and bulk. Gorgeous image though. 

On the 1DX II - I'm going to try it out. I want it for a very specific thing. The options are open however there's a gap to fill. 

[austinchimp]

It sounds like you've made up your mind, and good luck it's a very exciting purchase that will certainly hold a significant portion of it's value for years to come, by which time everything will be 8k 10 bit I guess.

I'm considering the camera for the reasons I've already stated - it's a rugged outdoor one-stop-shop for video and photos and it's weather sealed for when I get splashed by water or caught in rain, which happens to me often and prevents me from using my Ursa Mini in some situations.

My main concern then is this - will the GH5 blow it out of the water? I'm worried I may end up with a 1DX mk2, A7rii, Ursa Mini 4.6k, AND a GH5. What were we talking about earlier - GAS? :-/

[Oliver Daniel]

20 hours ago, austinchimp said:

It sounds like you've made up your mind, and good luck it's a very exciting purchase that will certainly hold a significant portion of it's value for years to come, by which time everything will be 8k 10 bit I guess.

I'm considering the camera for the reasons I've already stated - it's a rugged outdoor one-stop-shop for video and photos and it's weather sealed for when I get splashed by water or caught in rain, which happens to me often and prevents me from using my Ursa Mini in some situations.

My main concern then is this - will the GH5 blow it out of the water? I'm worried I may end up with a 1DX mk2, A7rii, Ursa Mini 4.6k, AND a GH5. What were we talking about earlier - GAS? :-/

Well now you mention it, I have made up my mind - after fully reviewing the purchase - I WON'T be getting the 1DX mk II. 

For these reasons: 

1. The wi-fi module which should be built in, is very expensive for what it is. 

2. The touch screen isn't tilted or articulated. Also with no exposure aids whatsoever, an additional monitor is essential. These are pricey and I imagine it would be awkward trying to use DPAF and an external monitor at the same time.

3. Memory Cards + File Sizes. Turnover is important. Sometimes shoots are so thick and fast, you need more memory cards in case you don't have time to dump the footage and format the cards. These Cfast 2 cards are bloody pricey! 

4. CLOG. Like austinchimp said, I find dynamic range very important. Having looked at examples of the pretend CLOGs available, I see very little dynamic range benefit. A little more leeway in the shadows and a smoother knee, but not enough really. The roll-off is still pretty steep. I'm much more used to SLOG. 

5. Stills. Nothing to moan about however the body as a stills camera is overkill for me, now I've held it. It's cool, but it's a chunky picture taker!

6. Target market. It IS a journalists camera - fast action and ready for anything. Great! But I'm not the right market for this product, the community around the camera is slim. Plus very little movement on third party accessories for video shooters. 

What I am doing: 

I have an investment in the FS5 which can be stripped down and bulked up as necessary. I've decided to pump my cash into this system and make it the best tool it can be, so I can get on and not want/need another camera for years. 

The FS5 can be stripped down for gimbal use and motion control sliders, and souped up into a 4k120fps monster. Using a quick release system and an assistant, I can change from tool to tool pretty swiftly. 

Autofocus? It's not critical, just very nice to have. But I think I'll be selling all my EF glass and buy Sony glass instead, so they work natively at the highest performance without issues. I'd be "stuck" in the Sony system however I don't really care, I'll have everything I need to shoot video. 

I'll grab an A6300/A6500 for stills or something. 

I think it's really beneficial to stick to a single camera system. You can really get to learn it and master it. All this chopping and changing can slow down progress and take your eye off the whole point: creating great content.