photographer-at-large

There's a point where the image is good enough, and at that point other factors come into play, such as 60p and DPAF. Like many have said there's no point in slightly more DR if you missed the shot. To each their own. But I much prefer the ability to easily nail focus to a negligible difference in picture quality at the extremes. Out of focus shots are immediately apparent, and effect the ability to tell your story. Slow motion 4k is a powerful story enhancing tool. A slight increase in detail in the shadows is not going to impact the story to any great extent. It's really that simple.

What I would do:
• wait a couple weeks....IF Apple announces new laptops at their WWDC, hopefully recharging will be via USB-C
          (then there should be many more battery options than currently with MagSafe)
• get a 12.9" iPad Pro and connect via TwoMonUSB
          (four speakers are built into iPad Pro 12.9" or 9.7", but only 9.7" has DCI-P3 gamut)

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)

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).

Currently, I have a BMPC-4K for my own projects and I don't want anything more to do with these massive CinemaDNG files or the rig that I had to assemble to carry the V-Lock battery (the internal battery lasts about 30 minutes). Its rear screen is also completely useless outdoors and the "black sun" issue has ruined many of my shots that cannot be fixed in Resolve. With its limited DR, I have to shoot this camera 12 Bit RAW instead of ProRes in order to recover highlights and shadows and that means that 1 minute of footage takes up 12 gigabytes! It's also very difficult to edit on Resolve unless you have two GPUs.
The 1DC would alleviate many of these problems and allow me to take my camera places where my current setup is impractical. I would also be able to use my slider and Steadicam and carry all this equipment to remote locations in the forest, for example, where I have gone in the past with smaller cameras. Add to that the weather-sealed body and my L glass collection and it's a perfect combination. If I keep to the Raven preorder or switch to a Scarlet-W, I would retain the RAW quality while easing up on the processing requirements for post. Both the 1DC and the Raven/Scarlet-W would offer a significant improvement in DR. And this is not even to mention the IR pollution on the BMD sensors . . .

More frames
Cinestyle ungraded and graded, 1DX mark II 4K frame capture 4K/25p, 500 mbit/s.
 
 

One still frame from unedited video shot in Cinestyle: 
Flat cat and two grade attempts.
 



More frames
Cinestyle ungraded and graded, 1DX mark II frame capture.
 
 

I can post later different sharpenings step by step. 
In my current footage and frame grabs, the sharpening slider has been pulled all the way to the left, ie absolute minimum.
I have not shot with the camera with different sharpening settings yet (than absolute minimum).
I do not see any sharpening halos on my frames so I am guessing that if there is some sharpening left, it is at least quite low. On per pixel level it is probably a little softer than BMCC in ProRes mode as BMCC had no AA filter and the 1:1 pixels are a little blurred on the 1DX2 due to AA filter and 1:1 pixel readout and no oversampling. Looking frame grabs from the video, they look about the same as still photographs with the camera and I am very happy about this (ie the video mode is not any worse than the still mode in other words, in previous Canon models, the video mode has always been inferior to still mode, for example with 5D2 the image quality per pixel and also including the dynamic range was way worse in video mode vs. still mode). 

I have also shot with "Prolost" style in Fine detail picture style (not neutral). However, I find the Cinestyle much flatter than that. But I think in many occasions the Prolosted Fine detail may be good enough (ie when not pointing to bright sky). Bright sky appears to require Cinestyle and also dialing exposure down to not clip the sky around the sun. I would say that sky clips more easily than on my ex-BMCC in raw-mode. About ProRes mode I am not sure, quite similar.

I will test the Prolostified Fine detail also saturation dialed all the way to minimum because with my experience the footage was still very saturated despite I had the contrast at minimum and the saturation at -2 (vs Cinestyle that is colorless in comparison, but not as colorless than BMD film - saturation will clip earlier than in BMD film for sure). 
 
 
"Prolosted" fine detail. Contrast: minimum, sharpening  minimum, saturation -2. As you can see, white highlight clips.
With Cinestyle the highlight would not have probably clipped.




I also own Panasonic GH4. I am liking the video I get from the 1DX2 maybe million times more than GH4. The GH4 feels now so disappointing that I am reluctant to use it at all. GH4 was supposed to be good, but the sensor in fact is worse than the BMCC sensor and in fact the GH4 processing makes the image mushy soft after around 1600 ISO, some forced noise reduction is going on that can not be turned off. All this kind of symptoms are absent on 1DX2 images. The only ISO from GH4 I can stand now is 200 and 400, all other ISOs look just bad. I would sell my GH4 if it wasn't so small. The only advantage of the Panasonic now is the size (handy to take places). Sadly it is so poor in especially anything else than sunlight, that it is not so handy when going to places. Instead I find myself carrying the heavy 1DX2 and 70-200 2.8L around instead of the GH4 that has the same focal length for fraction of the weight.
 

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'm amazed that not one response here has included the word "impedance". Generally, (in the realm of microphones) XLR gear is expecting a low impedance signal; and mini-plug gear is expecting a high impedance signal. I'd at least get a barrel-style XLR to 1/4 transformer adapter, and then add a 1/4 to 1/8 (though these days someone may make an XLR to 1/8?). The other issue is that those three pins each do something. Most camera-in jacks are TR (tip ring) for a mono input, or TRS (tip ring sleeve, three conducters) for a stereo input. I believe most DSLRs have a stereo mic input, but could be mistaken? So you have the potential for grounding problems as well.
The design of the XLR connector is "purely for the stability of the connection" - it's pretty robust - but most XLR mics - and any you'd really want to use on-set - will be XLRs that are using the three pins to carry the standard low impedance signal. You can do low impedance with any three-conducter setup (1/4 TRS is popular) but mics for on-set audio (ecluding lavs) will use the full-sized XLR, will require phantom power, and will be low-z.
Speaking of phantom power - some mics have an internal battery, but if not, you're limited to using dynamic mics which generally aren't used for film sound for a host of reasons.
There's another current thread here dealing with this exact subject. Unless this is just a hobby for the OP, I'd say at the very least get a decent preamp that converts the XLR input to a preamped 1/8 output. And for probably the same money, you could get, say, a Tascam DR60D ($169 if you shop around, and showing up used all over), which has phantom power, mic power, meters, headphone and camera out level controls, minus 6DB safety tracks, low cut, a limiter, slate tone, etc. Far as I know it's about the best budget solution to beginner's audio needs, and the adjustable camera out allows you to stage your gain and at least try to get a clean and strong signal to the camera if you don't want to synch in post (and still have a nice clean recorder track if the camera audio isn't optimal). I imagine it would really up the quality of something like a blade as well.
I know some of the monitor/recorders have audio ins and meters, but you're missing a lot of really necessary features - features that can really save your butt - and you're not talking investing thousand of bucks to get those features. If you're planning to charge money, I'd really recommend a pro solution, even something entry level like the DR - it will outlive your next ten cameras.

Do you have a pic of this adapter? I think I'm using a similar solution, here's the guy: http://www.thomann.de/de/sennheiser_ka_600.htm?ref=search_rslt_xlr+3.5_312811_19

I did a little reading up and from what I could tell there's no loss of quality using a 3.5mm adapter, XLR is purely for the stability of the connection. Generally if something had a XLR input then the quality would be better because you're most likely getting dedicated audio focused amps. 

I plug my Sennheiser MK 600 directly into my Sony A7SII with this method and have found the Sony A7SII pre-amps to be REALLY good and I get great output. The only problem is that the 3.5mm jack can be nudged and moved and that creates static. I have to be careful with that, but that's the only problem I've encountered. 

I'm no expert either but I'd think the sound quality of the two Zooms would be the same. But if I'm understanding the other part of your question, and your mic is going directly from that xlr connection into your camera, then you're depending solely on the sound quality of your camera's amps, which usually isn't the best quality compared to if the mic was going into a dedicated preamp and then into your dslr/mirrorless (unless  dslr/mirrorless cameras have much better amps now?? I'm still on a 5D III/ML). The point of buying a dedicated preamp is to bypass the camera's preamps right? So for me I use a Marantz PMD661 with the Oade mod which gives me a great preamp + a second HQ recording. But somehow I feel like you already know this and I'm not really understanding your question. Either way interesting find!

Basically you're losing the quality and advantages of the balanced cable (the main reason to use XLR) when you connect the adapter. (You can search balanced vs unbalanced cable for plenty of info)
Other than that you should have the same results as using any other mic or cable with a minijack on the end depending on how well made/shielded the adapter is.
The weak points in the signal would probably be the camera or zoom preamps more than the type of cable/adapter

I have the 1DX2 since 10 days now.  Used to work with A7R/S2 and GH4, the size and weight and the lack of a tilting screen or peaking is a big minus.  Even on the photo side Canon did cut features like internal timelapse or the HDR function of the 5D3, which is very uncool for this price. 
But by adding a magnet viewfinder like in old 5D2 days, the 1DX2 is still a handable and can be used as one man show, with 2 outstanding advantages:  4K 60fps of course and the excellent video autofocus.  If you use it right, there is no need for manual focus or focus peaking, and shooting can be done much faster than before and can be even more fun with even sharper shots.
Amazingly the video autofocus does work very good with all Canon lenses from the last years, and also selected ones like the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC or 85/1.8 VC.  Without any logical pattern, other Tamron or Sigma lenses don't do video focus at all.  A Tamron 16-300 superzoom doesn't work although it has great stabilization paired with the 1DX2, a Sigma 18-300 does have video focus but weak stabilization.  Crop lenses don't seem to vignette with the 1.3x 4K video crop of the camera.
The photo focus features and 16fps are also very nice for certain shooting situations, although the amount of MP is low when being used to a 5DsR, 645Z or A7R2.  To me it is not an outstanding dynamic range monster and the quality difference to pics like from an RX100 IV is not huge enough.
What's missing is the whole amount of nice small E-mount lenses and stupidly no Canon crop lenses can be mounted, so a 1DX2 setup will require all the large and heavy Canon full frame lenses.  At least they work great and are a pro photo option as well, so the cominations make it an excellen allround camera.
Strange is that 4K 25fps video can be recorded on fast CF cards and doesnt require the superexpensive CFAST cards like Canon says.  In 4K 60fps mode, the CF cards do stop recording after app. 8 seconds.
All in all Canon needs to be quick to release mirrorless versions of their DSLR lineup.  At photokina Sony will release the A9 that comes with all relevant DSLR features and of course the best of the A7 world - and if this A9 camera does have 4K 60fps, there is no need for a 1DX2 anymore (and certainly not a 5D4).
 
 
 

Well the question has been burning so I figured I would run some quick test to highlight the differences between these two heavy weights when it comes to video. The two frames below are taken from 4k video captured under that same conditions, using the same lens, ISO, White Balance, Frame rate. Everything is the same on both cameras. Lighting set to 3700k in both cases with some practical lighting filling in. Nothing has been color graded/corrected. Images are direct frame grabs.
About the videos: the Canon is capable of very cinematic footage at 24 fps. The Sony tends to feel more like video, but has very good quality for a camera of such a small size. Color science is very different between the two. The Canon's batteries last a long time. I will not speak of focus as the Sony will be a a disadvantage in this particular test as it is running as Canon lens. While native glass will fare better, the Canon has a decisive edge in the focus pulling department. 
In short, great results can be had from either camera, however the Canon will make getting those result feel less like work.
 

The Trump lens series is a perfect match for the F35, right down to the black and gold!
I wanted to get a general idea of the look from the Trump series of lenses  in a simple natural daylight setting without flaring. Realize there are a million variables, attributes, characteristics, mechanics, etc... The optical characteristics the Trump lenses are most famous for (wide open low contrast, flaring, custom bokeh) are not shown here.
Camera settings:  1DC      iso 400, roughly 180 degree shutter, standard profile, daylight wb, 4k 8bit 422 (log is my preference, but wanted to use a profile all Canon cameras have in common so it would be easier to see the lenses characteristics without a custom grade getting in the way)   
                              F35      cine ei mode, adjusted exposure slightly in Resolve, slog, sgamut, 180 degree shutter, daylight wb., 1920x1080 12bit 444 dpx, upscaled to uhd (for easier comparison to the 1dc files) keep in mind the scaling probably doesn't do the F35 any favors.
Apertures:             T3.1 very roughly for the Canon and Trump, T3.9 on the Cooke
I used latest version of Adobe media encoder to export tiffs with best settings possible.  I delogged the F35 footage in Resolve with Sony's  F35 Aces input transform with an srgb output. Captured stills and exported as tiffs from Resolve 12.
Below are low res jpegs.  Srgb Tiffs to download here :https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6dC48Sfvqr4c3k1aVh4UkhBS2M&usp=sharing
 
 

This was done by eye- I don't know how Canon implements CLog internally. I created a low-contrast S-curve and a few minor color tweaks. This boosts the shadows and flattens the highlights, similar to how CLog looks (not really a log gamma, more log-ish). I can try to match CLog more carefully using the C300 II as reference. Max DR for the C300 II requires Canon Log 2, which is basically Arri LogC (along with Canon's Cinema color and "Production" matrix emulates ARRI (can use ARRI 3D LUTs etc.)).
The DR seems similar to the C300 II (haven't shot them side-by-side yet). Based on the noise so far, the 1DX II might be better than the C300 II for low light. The DR and low light performance on the C300 II and 1DX II are better than 5D3 RAW, however the 5D3 RAW can look amazing when processed with ACR, Resolve, etc. The newer cameras have lower RS vs. the 5D3. A 5D4 with 10+bit very high quality 1080p and the same DR as the 1DX II (and PDAF) would be more useful than 4K for our needs.

Did some tests with the 1DX II today. We plan to use the 1DX II with the C300 II for multicam shoots (and with the A7S II as well).
After testing the builtin profiles and getting close to something I liked with a modified Faithful profile, I created a custom picture profile using Canon's Picture Style Editor. The goal was to emulate CLog: boost shadows and pull highlights (and look decent straight out of camera). I tried a few variations and below is the result I felt was a good start:
Lens: Canon 24-105, 1/50, F5, ISO 1600, Highly Tone Priority On, custom picture profile. Full frame IPB 23.98 1080p, PADF, internal camera mic, mixed lighting (challenging LED practical lights (green bias/spike), monitor lights, and a decent LED in the background).
Thoughts: I like the camera. It does a nice job in mixed lighting, it looks pretty good out of the box and even better with a custom picture profile. RS is present but low. 4K60 plays back fine in PP CC. Transcoding to much smaller H.264 IPB 4K files at 250Mbps looks decent when not pixel peeping (mostly loses noise detail), might try to optimize further. Currently everything we create is for online 420 IPB delivery (YouTube, Vimeo).
I haven't done low light tests yet, however pulling up the shadows is very clean, and the noise grain is pleasing. Canon's full frame 1080p isn't as good as Sony's full frame (4K 100Mbps downscaled to 1080p in post). It's not just the downscale where the A7S II is better, the Canon is doing lower quality pixel binning/skipping as there is aliasing and moire (see my glasses frame edges). The 1DX II looks amazing in 4K, however it's a 1.33 crop. Thus for full frame 1080p the A7S II looks better (when RS won't cause an issue). For internet delivery and the average viewer, the difference probably isn't important. If the quality difference becomes important, we can shoot in 4K with a 1.33 crop (and purchase more hard drives). We're currently shooting with the C300 II in 50Mbps 1080p IPB- quality is more than sufficient, including for green screen (I'll post technical details and a clip in another thread).
The 1DX II uses new batteries, which are proprietary and very expensive compared to 5D3 batteries (and not currently available- should be available soon). Size wise, the 1DX II is like a 5D3 with the battery grip built in.
The AF is pretty good, it keeps tracking even when the head is turned sideways: their face detector is trained beyond just straight on, which is cool. AF noise is somewhat loud; less of an issue when not using the built in mic (same for C300 II). Canon's EF-S STM lenses can't be mounted to full frame cameras without modification, so there's currently limited options for quiet AF FF EF lenses (e.g. the Canon 40mm F2.8, 50mm F1.8, and 24-105 F3.5-5.6 EF STM)).
In summary: with a custom picture profile to boost shadows and pull highlights (attached to this post) along with Highlight Tone Priority enabled, it's possible to get close to CLog, and image quality, noise quality, skintones, RS, and AF are really nice.
 
1DX2e_Logish.pf3

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/omeneo-releases-a-software-that-will-improve-the-sony-a7rii-quality/