We’ve been discussing this very topic on DVXuser for several weeks, but I’m not here to bore you with all the details and footage comparisons involved in our lengthy debate.
Suffice it to say that both cameras offer astounding color reproduction, noise performance, and resolving power. Log or no Log, these are both great cameras with the 1DX II improving in three key areas: rolling shutter, 4K60P, and DPAF.
Although C-Log would have been an unlikely but welcome addition to the 1DX II, it’s a very capable camera in the right conditions and in the right hands. Naturally, without C-Log it has more contrast and less DR (3-4 stops) but it also has a very filmic image owing to the MJPEG codec and 4:2:2 subsampling it shares with the 1DC. Just think of the two cameras as two different kinds of film stock suited for different kinds of grades or looks.
We should also not forget that filmmakers like Abraham Joffe have shot beautiful footage on the 1DC without using C-Log:
https://vimeo.com/85900123
In fact, Joffe has stated that he prefers shooting the 1DC using the picture profile settings and not C-Log:
http://www.untitledfilms.com.au/2013/11/shoot-edit-deliver-4k-now/
You can check out all his 1DC films including the National Geographic TV series, Tales By Light, to get an idea of what is possible outside of C-Log:
https://vimeo.com/79268261
https://vimeo.com/128699210
I’m not suggesting that I agree with Joffe on C-Log, but it’s a different perspective from my own and I find that Joffe’s approach is very compelling considering the results it has produced on the 1DC.
Moreover, instead of choosing between these two cameras, I would be tempted to hold off and wait at least 4-5 months for any upcoming 1DC II announcement. That will combine the best of both worlds. After all, Canon has good reason to withhold key cinema features such as C-Log and Super 35mm mode from the 1DX II and we shall soon know what they have in mind . . .