Keep 1DX II or get A7III for Video/Photos?

[Snowbro]

Focusing on cinematic work on youtube, but also have a 10k instagram, so I need both video and photos. I get amazing video out of the 1DX II, but there are a few things that bother me. 

1. Workflow: If shooting 4k, I have to transcode and the 4k footage ends up being massive vs the sony (transcode to h.264 looked like junk), 300GB+ for 1 day of shooting 4k. C-Fast cards are also pretty pricey for not much footage. 
2. IBIS: Canon's lack of stabilized lenses is annoying, I want to hand hold some 60p(4k)/120p with some motion. It doesn't always work to stabilize it a little in post. I mostly have to get it on a gimbal, but switching lenses requires re-balancing and is annoying. Then not being able to steady a shot on my knee in 4k for a wide landscape shot is irritating. 
3. Size/Weight travelling: One big thing with the 1DX is; everyone in a 70 yard radius is looking at the camera. It draws a lot of attention, I didn't film a bunch of areas because I didn't want to get robbed. Using the 16-35 2.8 the weight on a crane 2 gimbal feels like it is going to eventually snap in half if you do any movements other than hold it straight up and down. 

Reasons to stay with 1DX II over the Sony:

1. Autofocus: It seems to still be a little better on the Canon for non face tracking scenarios. I would always get some focus breathing regardless of settings when using an a6500 on a gimbal following someone. The Canon autofocus racking is extremely smooth as well, it looks like it was done manually by a pro. 
2. Color: The 1DX II has 8 bit 4:2:2 internal vs the 4:2:0 in the Sony. I don't know how much that matters, but I noticed less banding than on my Sony I had. I know the Sony colors have been improved, but I seriously had some instances in forest type areas with my Sony that I could not get this fluorescent green/yellowish color to correct (flat/erased color data). I would probably create a LUT for the Sony; the Canon looks awesome out of the box and it's easy to do creative grades without the skin tones in highlighted areas getting messed up. 
3. Lenses: The Canon lenses holding many of us hostage haha. I have about $8,000 in L lenses and will only get about $4,000 selling them. The switch to a $2,000 body vs the $6,000 + a few Sony lenses will equate to me having the same amount of money spent as on the 1DX II and the lenses. 

If anyone has experience in this, please let me know your thoughts. I was thinking an A7iii or A7Riii/A7Siii combo when it comes out. It is a hard decision. 

[DBounce]

2 hours ago, Snowbro said:

Focusing on cinematic work on youtube, but also have a 10k instagram, so I need both video and photos. I get amazing video out of the 1DX II, but there are a few things that bother me. 

1. Workflow: If shooting 4k, I have to transcode and the 4k footage ends up being massive vs the sony (transcode to h.264 looked like junk), 300GB+ for 1 day of shooting 4k. C-Fast cards are also pretty pricey for not much footage. 
2. IBIS: Canon's lack of stabilized lenses is annoying, I want to hand hold some 60p(4k)/120p with some motion. It doesn't always work to stabilize it a little in post. I mostly have to get it on a gimbal, but switching lenses requires re-balancing and is annoying. Then not being able to steady a shot on my knee in 4k for a wide landscape shot is irritating. 
3. Size/Weight travelling: One big thing with the 1DX is; everyone in a 70 yard radius is looking at the camera. It draws a lot of attention, I didn't film a bunch of areas because I didn't want to get robbed. Using the 16-35 2.8 the weight on a crane 2 gimbal feels like it is going to eventually snap in half if you do any movements other than hold it straight up and down. 

Reasons to stay with 1DX II over the Sony:

1. Autofocus: It seems to still be a little better on the Canon for non face tracking scenarios. I would always get some focus breathing regardless of settings when using an a6500 on a gimbal following someone. The Canon autofocus racking is extremely smooth as well, it looks like it was done manually by a pro. 
2. Color: The 1DX II has 8 bit 4:2:2 internal vs the 4:2:0 in the Sony. I don't know how much that matters, but I noticed less banding than on my Sony I had. I know the Sony colors have been improved, but I seriously had some instances in forest type areas with my Sony that I could not get this fluorescent green/yellowish color to correct (flat/erased color data). I would probably create a LUT for the Sony; the Canon looks awesome out of the box and it's easy to do creative grades without the skin tones in highlighted areas getting messed up. 
3. Lenses: The Canon lenses holding many of us hostage haha. I have about $8,000 in L lenses and will only get about $4,000 selling them. The switch to a $2,000 body vs the $6,000 + a few Sony lenses will equate to me having the same amount of money spent as on the 1DX II and the lenses. 

If anyone has experience in this, please let me know your thoughts. I was thinking an A7iii or A7Riii/A7Siii combo when it comes out. It is a hard decision. 

I’ve owned/own several alpha series cameras. My 1DXMK2 is like cheating when it comes to capturing great stills. And for CGing the codec holds together better. But honestly I started only using baked in colors on the Canon. It’s good enough not to have to monkey around with. 

I don’t consider the Sony alpha series to be in the same league as the Canon. 

If you want great video in a smaller package, opt for the Panasonic GH5S if using a gimbal or other stabilizing equipment. 

Nothing I have seen will beat the Canon for straight out of camera results for video and stills.

[Snowbro]

Thanks for your input. I agree, it does seem easier to get a good looking video from the Canons right now. I see some cool stuff by people using a Sony, but then they have some scenes that look like they were shot with my Samsung S8. I did more research and saw that a bunch of people have put out videos showing an issue with the 24p 4k (jittering at 50 shutters speed). Then I did see problems with the continuous autofocus tracking, plus some jumpy focus problems. I don't know if those issues persist on the A7Riii.

I am sure they will work awesome for 99% of the buyers, but I really need the best cinematic autofocusing available. It's a shame Canon has dragged their feet and purposely left out features from cameras like the 5D IV and even CLOG from the 1DX II. I wish they had a 35mm & 50mm with stabilization, I guess I will just get faster at rebalancing my gimbal in the field. 

[webrunner5]

I don't know, you could buy a pretty good Sony A7 mk III and lens kit for what you can get just for the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II body used. Close to the latest and greatest stuff.

[Coiii]

If color it's a big deal for you stay with Canon. You will hate any Sony.

Im also with you in the lack of any kind of internal stabilization. Maybe the only solution its to buy a smaller gimbal like the Crane 2, the Tiilta or the new Ronin S. It will take you a little more time but you will keep great color, great video quality, great autofocus and high end photography.

[webrunner5]

I don't know you just give up way too many features not having a Sony A7xx over the EOS-1D X Mark II in this day and age. Sure the colors are nice on a Canon, but the green, dead looking Color Science on the older Sony's are long gone.

But I prefer the Color Science of my original A7s over the newer ones. They are too good in a sense. I like the grunge look of the older A7s. Now if I was doing Normal stuff, trying to make a buck with one, well I Would want the newer ones.

[Robert Collins]

Here's a decent video on the subject....

My take on it....

1) The fact that we are comparing a US$2000 Sony against a US$6000 Canon really speaks volumes about the Sony. If the switch in terms of camera + lenses is a wash then the Sony sets you up better in the future - a US$2000 replacement or a US$6000 replacement (using a Sony body with Canon lenses and expecting good video af would be heroically optimistic.)

2) If you dont value ibis (which allows a lot of handheld especially at 120p) or the fact that you can use a smaller gimbal isnt of much interest, there isnt a lot of incentive to change

3) If 4k/60 or Canon colors are a dealbreaker the same applies.

[Parker]

Why don't you just adapt all that lovely Canon glass to Sony? No need to sell it! I've seen A7III videos with truly remarkable performance of adapted Canon glass, the eye-autofocus especially for stills on the Sony looks incredible. 

 

[sam]

5 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

Here's a decent video on the subject....

 

 

So he's used it for a couple of hours max, recording in a low stress nature setting with perfect natural light.

He proceeds to make a review admittedly littered with exaggeration.

Definitely fits in at Eoshd.

 

 

 

[Robert Collins]

30 minutes ago, sam said:

 

So he's used it for a couple of hours max, recording in a low stress nature setting with perfect natural light.

He proceeds to make a review admittedly littered with exaggeration.

Definitely fits in at Eoshd.

 

I dont know  what your problem is BUT he is a 1Dx ii user who had the A7iii 'for about a week'. It is almost certainly littered with 'new toy' exaggerations although he did at least vlog with the camera..

But the Op here asked for opinions. And I dont know who is better to give opinions than someone who has used both cameras. Admittedly a week isnt a long time but it is fairly long in terms of the A7iii when the camera was only released in the US two weeks ago.

If you happen to be better qualified to give your opinions go ahead....

[Django]

I wouldn't switch now, especially from a 1DX2 + $6K Canon glass. All rumors are pointing towards a FF mirrorless from Canon probably announced around Photokina.

Also 1DX2 is a beast and imo destroys the A73 in terms of IQ. The file sizes might be huge but they produce super thick imagery with that cinematic intra-frame motion.

The A73 AF is good, but nowhere near Canon's dual pixel reliability & smoothness.

Let's not even get started on color science & WB..

[Don Kotlos]

IMHO the new generation of Sony cameras A7III/A7rIII/A9 are significantly better than their predecessors in every way possible. So I would suggest people keep their mind open and avoid propagating false information unless they have direct experience. 

That being said, the experience at least when shooting pictures is very different between a DSLR and a mirrorless. I still find the OVF a pleasure to use but only when there is enough light. When things become a bit darker the EVF is far ahead. Tracking should be faster in the 1DXii, but if you shoot prortraits/people then the Eye/Face detect is very useful. The other advantage of any mirrorless is shooting with the LCD which is still clunky with most DSLRs. 

On the video side, sure the AF of the 1Dxmkii will be better but the newer Sonys are actually very close. The IBIS is the major factor that drove me to mirrorless really. Having the ability to stabilize any lens makes shooting so much more enjoyable as well. I also find the colors of the new Sony cameras very good. To my eye after you play around a bit with the settings they can definitely be better than Olympus/Nikon/Panasonic. 

If you have the money, I would suggest to rent on for few days. You might like it or hate it and it can save you quite a bit of money in the long run. 

[Django]

52 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

IMHO the new generation of Sony cameras A7III/A7rIII/A9 are significantly better than their predecessors in every way possible. So I would suggest people keep their mind open and avoid propagating false information unless they have direct experience. 

 

 

I've had access to an A7III for over a month. My opinion stands.  

Same 8-bit 4:2:0 100mbps XAVC-S codec. Hot pixels. Motion issues. Even more convoluted menus. AA filter. strong NR at high ISO..etc

..so I'd disagree with "significantly better than their predecessors in every way possible".

[sam]

"By far, my favorite new feature on this new camera is the improved battery life"   (a portion out of the review)

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, Django said:

..so I'd disagree with "significantly better than their predecessors in every way possible".

You must have not owned the original A7 and the A7r then, or my A7s. The 1Dx mk II is a Dinosaur in this day and age. A big ass one at that. With Luts, and Resolve Color Science is pretty much a thing of the past. And not Everyone is a huge Canon Color fan anyways. I like Nikon way better.

[DBounce]

17 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

You must have not owned the original A7 and the A7r then, or my A7s. The 1Dx mk II is a Dinosaur in this day and age. A big ass one at that. With Luts, and Resolve Color Science is pretty much a thing of the past. And not Everyone is a huge Canon Color fan anyways. I like Nikon way better.

Dinosaur, McFly? Perhaps one day, but this is not that day. The truth is the Sony is a great prosumer hybrid. Whereas the Canon 1DXMK2 is a great professional tool. Either can get the job done... but I would pick my Canon 1DXMk2 over my Sonys every time... if I could only have one. Luckily, I can have many... so problem solved

[webrunner5]

51 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Dinosaur, McFly? Perhaps one day, but this is not that day. The truth is the Sony is a great prosumer hybrid. Whereas the Canon 1DXMK2 is a great professional tool. Either can get the job done... but I would pick my Canon 1DXMk2 over my Sonys every time... if I could only have one. Luckily, I can have many... so problem solved

I would not trade my Sony A7s for your 1Dx mk II even. But that is what makes the world go around. I have had a lot of the 1D, 1Ds EOS series cameras. For long lenses for photography they are the cats ass. For video using small primes, nah not so much compared to the newer Sony's. I am Never going back to any DSLR for video. Now if I was a sports photographer well sure. But it would be the Nikon D5, not the Canon 1Dx mk II.

[Yurolov]

5 hours ago, Django said:

I've had access to an A7III for over a month. My opinion stands.  

Same 8-bit 4:2:0 100mbps XAVC-S codec. Hot pixels. Motion issues. Even more convoluted menus. AA filter. strong NR at high ISO..etc

..so I'd disagree with "significantly better than their predecessors in every way possible".

Basically what you are saying is that the IQ for video hasn't changed all that much in quite a few years.

Color is a major issue if we are talking about 8 bit cameras. 

Really the results speaks for themselves. 9/10 times the Sony footage looks like footage you'd get from a camcorder. The 1dx is another beast all together. 

It seems insane to me that you'd be willing to switch, but to each their own. 

The 1dx is a 5-7 year camera, maybe more, while the a7 will be replaced in 2. That's another consideration. 

[scotchtape]

Just now, Yurolov said:

Basically what you are saying is that the IQ for video hasn't changed all that much in quite a few years.

Color is a major issue if we are talking about 8 bit cameras. 

Really the results speaks for themselves. 9/10 times the Sony footage looks like footage you'd get from a camcorder. The 1dx is another beast all together. 

It seems insane to me that you'd be willing to switch, but to each their own. 

The 1dx is a 5-7 year camera, maybe more, while the a7 will be replaced in 2. That's another consideration. 

I honestly think there's more to it than that, any camera can look bad.

Check YT, you can find pretty crap 1DX MK II clips, especially if you watch in HD.  

"More" 1DX II clips might look better because if you drop $6K on a camera you probably know what you're doing, aside from the occasional user with extra cash.

But with the cheaper Sony cam's, the barrier to entry is so low there are so many crap clips out there because you get lots of people that don't bother tweaking settings, they just shoot, and then pretend color grade (not that I'm the best), which YT then chews up and spits out, especially if you are not a big YT star / advertiser.

I've seen some really good 1DX MK II clips and I won't knock what it can do, but for 1/3 the price the Sony can deliver some decent results as well.

[hmcindie]

45 minutes ago, Yurolov said:

Basically what you are saying is that the IQ for video hasn't changed all that much in quite a few years.

Well it hasn't.  The A7rIII that I tried mostly improved on usable issues like having the APS-C mode settable on a button. The actual usage / image quality is not that different in real life use compared to the A7sII.

So if someone says that the A7iii changes everything, it's kinda weird. It's the same camera just cheaper.