independent

Second rule: who fucking cares. So the OP sold his 5D and is mulling his next options....and this thread ended up being a circle jerk of bragging about cheaply bought 5D's?

It's hard to predict, but Canon is pretty good about protecting their lines and market segmentation. They did push the dual pixel autofocus and 4K 60P pretty hard on the 1DX II.

It really depends on your needs. A documentary could mean dodging bullets or establishing shots and interviews. A music video and narrative, the same. The content should dictate what kind of camera you use. Then consider the production costs and needs. Your crew, lighting and sound. Different cameras have different needs. Lastly, post production costs and delivery matters. All of these should factor into your decision. But honestly, your demands are broad enough to NOT buy. There is no magical camera that rules them all. All of them involve compromises. It's not a sexy answer, but put your money into talent and crew. A lot of camera ops and sound mixers/boom ops are also available as wet hires. They bring their own gear, and they're skilled at using them. Many of them market themselves with their gear, so you can also vet them based on what cameras they have and use. It'll be a lot better than throwing a new camera at some guy and telling him to figure it out, because you read that it was the bees knees on an Internet forum. Think about the quirks of all these cameras. Ergonomically, menu-wise, and some things that you have to know only if you understand the full process of capturing and delivering that image. That only comes from experience, so put your money towards experience and skill, and the only thing more important than that is letting the content dictate everything. It'll make you a better storyteller and filmmaker.

Does it have fast and accurate continuous autofocus, which is the 1dx II's best and most important feature?

You really need to stabilize this camera. Tightly control its movement, or limit it to slow, deliberate moves. Perhaps ironically, I think it's a terrible run and gun camera, despite its small size, for those reasons. I'd put it on sticks, even. I'd focus on framing and composition to help tell the story, like "Ida."

I like RED but I wouldn't automatically think it's an upgrade from Blackmagic. I don't know about the new sensors, but my Scarlet was a lot worse than the BMCC in low light. Not even close - the was much better s/n from the Blackmagic, and the actual noise pattern was very organic on the blackmagic, not the Red. I'm sure you could have cleaned it up a bit in post, but the RED isn't something you can get away with underexposing at all. Again, maybe the new sensors are different, but I bailed out of that RED ecosystem full of expensive propriety support gear. I'm not surprised that Blackmagic is having some issues - RED did too. There's actually a much easier way for Blackmagic to exercise better quality control, service, and reliability, etc. It's price. They have been the cheapest (and have been) for their market segments, and the best image quality per price ratio, and in fact have disrupted the industry in some ways because the competition is lowering prices and offering similar products. Blackmagic has been trying to offer pro-level gear at consumer prices. Their game is pushing resolve and post-production products, not protecting lines of cameras. I'll say this, it's a lot more realistic to expect Blackmagic to fix some of their issues than Sony or Canon to offer cinema features in their consumer cameras.

It's actually pretty simple. Do you need autofocus? Then C100 II or 1DX II. Do you need the 4K and much better codec(s)? URSA mini 4.6k. They're actually very different cameras, so just go with what you need or want. Keep it simple.

How do the dual pixel autofocus compare?

When the RED Epic came out, a few photographers here in NYC were using them on shoots and pulling stills. They looked great. 1DX II apparently looks pretty good, motion jpeg, but if you're looking to get high quality stills over 1-3 seconds like you said, you might as well use the 14-16 burst mode on the 1DX II.

Other than the XLR inpputs and built-in ND's, in what ways was the C300 II better than the 1DX II?

Completely contrary to facts. Apple faced and still faces the very same issues. Jobs himself was famously quoted as saying apple shouldn't be afraid to cannabilize it's own product lines, because if it doesn't, somebody else will. Every major consumer electronics company with integrated product lines faces this issue. Product lines stagnate, die, are reborn - all dictated by profit maximization. That's happening with Apple, like it is with Samsung, Sony. I wanted a MacBook Air with a retina screen. Apple didn't give that me. I had to spend more to get a pro. They came out with a MacBook retina, except it was powered like an iPad. I'm not happy. Apple doesn't care, because they're in the business of making money. You're making the same complaints about canon. They don't care what you specifically want. They care about making money. Also, the 1DX II is not the most expensive dslr camera from canon. The 1DC retails for more. $2K more. It's a different camera. The 1DX II doesn't need to have all the features you want. It is the best 1DX, however. What it isn't is the 1DC, which exists to provide those "cinema" related c-features. You're trying to tell canon to do what seems obvious to you. But your incentives aren't the same. They make decisions to maximize profits. You want them to give you the camera you want. They really don't care. Its sucks, but really, it's useless bitching. Every company is trying to post short term profits. Its just reality in the 21st century. Or, try writing them a nice handwritten letter.

Oh the crazy Japanese. Oh wait, Apple does it too. Oh wait, so does any consumer electronics company. It's called economics in the 21st century, with mass production, globalization, etc. Ah, the days when you had two sets of clothes, one pair of shoes, and it cost you 6 months salary to buy that "television?" You're demanding a perfect camera so you won't have to buy another camera again for the rest of your life. If you want that bargain, then you'd have to make it profitable enough for that company. Buy that Alexa. No? Then you have to deal with compromises and shop at h&m like the rest of the masses and follow the seasonal trends. Look, even apple is struggling because the 5s is good enough for too many people. Ironically, their phones became too good, satisfying consumers as well as pushing their competitors. So Apple now has pressure because consumers are spending less money than expected. That's the power you as a consumer wield. These are consumer electronics companies, and you are the consumer market. There's really only one way to clearly communicate to the company. Buy or don't buy. That's why blackmagic is a welcome addition. Competition lowers prices and drives innovation. There will never be that "perfect" camera if you have the purchasing power of a consumer. Technological advances and expectations will always keep you wanting.

Don't kill me for saying this, but when I was looking into this camera a few weeks ago, I talked to two different editors who I've worked with (one works for a top advertising agency, another for a big tv show here in NYC) about these canon cameras, and c-log came up. One said, "it's overrated" - the other said, "don't shoot any of those canons in c-log." I could have sworn he mentioned some specific picture profiles but I don't remember. They both do CC-ing, the latter does extensive grading. I just took their word for it because they're good at what they do. Later, I looked online and there seemed to be complaints about banding, compression artifacts, etc. about c-log, whether it's due to the 8-bit codec or something else. Again, I don't have firsthand experience, and I'll try to get some more information from people who work with the footage for a living. I'm not saying who's right or wrong, but I just think there's a potential issue here (drawbacks of c-log) that might affect this 1DX II v. 1DC decision for some people.

I'd love to see more tests, but I don't see a 3-4 stop difference. regardless it's reasonably clear what the trade-offs are between these two cameras. If we're talking pure image quality, not features, but solely resolution (4K), dynamic range, color science, I think the better comparison would be the the 1dc and blackmagic ursa mini 4.6k, within the same price range. The 1dx mark ii is just a different beast. It's possibly the most versatile image capturing camera in the world right now. Not necessarily the most cinematic.

That's why cameras, like any tools for artist and artisan, are both a personal (what's important to you) and professional choice (what you need it for). There's no wrong or right, as long as you make the decision eyes wide open.

Thanks for the comparison, well done. This confirms what people have been saying, but aside from the 1DC's S35 1080p mode, I'm a little surprised at how close the images are. Probably not that noticeable once graded and viewed in motion. I'm actually liking that neutral profile on the 1DX II!

That's exactly the problem, which you're contributing to. Some jobs are incredibly hard - if not impossible - if you underestimate the difficulty of focusing unrehearsed movement. Speaking of newcomers, it would be a disservice to any novices to claim that you can "pull focus on the run" with "just practice." Because you can read minds and anticipate whichever way your subject will go? Amazing. So all this time, filmmakers have been using tape measures, focus marks, blocking, assistant cameramen, specific monitors for confirming focus.... When all they needed was practice? Trust me, you're being the dick here, because here in New York City we'd tell you straight up you're full of shit. Even the best dedicated focus pullers in the industry miss some shots for live events and documentary work because it's spontaneous movement, you can be shooting at a wide spot under practical lighting, etc. And they're amazing at a tough job, and they earn their keep. It's a lot more respectful to recognize that these cameras are all tools, many of which have their limitations, but to know them and make informed decisions.

Eh, it's one thing to be condescending, it's another to be ignorant and condescending. That just spreads misinformation. There are reasons to choose the 1DC over the 1DX, but the pretense that the 1DC is super easy to focus for video and if you can't, something is wrong with you? Just horseshit.

Then you should know how hard it is. With a big sensor and a still lens? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to keep unrehearsed movements in focus, while framing the shot and moving the camera? No offense, but you're full of shit. It's easy as being a "Cameraman"? Yeah, if you're shooting on a documentary camera - but not something like the 1DC, which is what we're talking about. Ever hear of a "focus puller?" There's a reason why there's a specialized job for this task. A focus puller has one of the most important jobs on any film shoot - it's one of the hardest skills. And anybody who actually has experience on a film shoot would know this obvious fact. Either you're talking out of your ass or you're the best focus puller in the world. Or, in your words, just a "cameraman." If you've never heard of a focus puller, it's time to start keeping your mouth shut and start learning.

Get real? Have you seriously tried manually focusing a non-interview documentary, live event, or narrative as a single operator? Good luck. Any 1D-whatever canon camera would pretty much be single operator, at least in NYC. Everybody else would use proper video cameras w/ AC to pull focus... any real low budget or single operator would realize the value of usable video autofocus. Get real, exactly.

That's all kinds of horseshit. Based on what, youtube videos of flowers? A building? The issue has nothing to do with the 1DC per se. Focusing the 1DC is not very different from any film/video camera up to this point...until Canon's dual pixel cameras and the 1DX II. You're losing sight of what the 1DX II offers. No, it's not difficult to focus any lens if you have a good focus puller. Or if you have the budget for one. Or the space in a location for one. Have you seen the 1DC used as a documentary camera? Have you seen it used to capture live events? How about feature films? And of the latter, how many of them were shot with a single operator? Meanwhile, the 1DX II provides solutions to all of the above. That's an advantage in time, efficiency, money, and creative opportunity. I'm not saying the 1DC doesn't have a dynamic range advantage. If that's the criterion for your camera, then that's your personal preference. But saying the 1DC isn't hard to focus is socking the straw man.

The lack of C-log on the 1dx ii is a pretty clear indication that they are committed to protecting the c-line of cameras.

The 1DX II is a "better buy" if you're talking about financial investment. It's a top of the line stills camera too, it'll hold it's value better. When and if the 1DC II comes out, that's not going to help the 1DC as an investment. Anyways, the 1DX II It has a cutting-edge, unparalleled video autofocus. It's a FAR more functional camera. The 1DC is now a more specialized camera, and unless you need the form factor and weather sealing, the blackmagic ursa mini 4.6K is a better video camera anyways, for the price range. 1DC v 1DX II is kind of a contrived comparison...there are other options out there. But if you're going to limit this to a two-horse race, I think the 1DX II is a better buy, especially since the 1DC retails for $2K more (in the USA) YMMV - of course if you can get one that fell off the back of a truck, that changes things. And as mentioned before, dynamic range isn't everything. If your shots aren't in focus, or you're racking in and out of focus, or you need to spend time blocking and setting up focus marks, rigging up your 1DC with a follow focus, while framing, while moving, etc. I mean, it's not even close...the 1DX II is far better if you're a one-man band or a skeleton crew. If you have a full crew, the 1DC would be better, but then again, you probably would be better off using a proper video camera. As far as preferring image quality, the 1DC does seem to look more organic (softer) with better highlight roll off. Is it more cinematic? Depends. If it's an independent film, yes. But look at the blockbusters or mainstreams films. Very contrasty. Vivid colors. There are also many shots that I see in beautifully shot films and shows that have blown out highlights. Some intentional, some you know it was probably a limitation, a trade-off (expose for the talent). The cinematic look is broader than you think. Anyways, we're also talking out-of-the-box looks. if you handle the image acquisition right, ETTR, adjust settings as aforementioned in the thread, give it a "filmic" grade, it seems you can get pretty close to the look you want. As yourself this: Can you tweak the 1DX II so it'll give you a look you'll be satisfied with? Can you tweak the 1DC so it'll get all your shots in focus?

If there is a 1DC with dual pixel, or the 1DX II gets C-Log, then that would really kill the c100 line and eat into the c300's as well. But maybe they'd be willing to do that based on the market. The Dual Pixel autofocus is Canon's primary selling point for their cinema cameras, however. Other makers have caught up with image quality, sensitivity, and ergonomics, at a lower price point.

Sure, but if we're not talking features but absolute image quality at the price range, then ursa 4.6k is better than the 1dc. Re: magenta issue - as far as I know its not a consistent issue, but blackmagic seems to have a good policy of firmware updates and/or fixing under warranty. But the 4.6k image, dynamic range, filmic, raw with prores? Nothing else competes at that price. I'm just surprised at how the AF of the 1dxii isn't considered more of a factor in terms of image quality. If your shot isn't in focus, it's a poor image, regardless of any 1dc mojo. So much of filmmaking is just getting the shot.