1dx ii 3 min recording limit?

C

camarade

Active member
This video claims there's a 3 min limit to recording 4k internally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8VwZjjZvb0

Is this true? Haven't been able to find another source for the claim. Also, and videographers here shooting with 1DX mk2 and happy with it? Looking at picking it up (as in being the "near perfect" combo of video and stills). Lack of log is bothersome but oh well. Thanks
 
His comment about 3 minutes is about the D5, which Nikon fixed/changed a while ago via a firmware update.

1DX Mark II...overpriced in today's world, but a fantastic camera.

[The 5D Mark IV does a lot of what the 1DX Mark II does and more...but not 4K/60p, which could be a deal breaker.]
 
5D Mark IV
EOS R
a7III
a7RIII
GH5
GH5s
G9
X-H1
X-T3
Z6
Z7

Honorable mentions: G9, a6300/a6500, X-T2, EM1 Mark II...Blackmagic Pocket 4K (video only).

Give AND take.

===

Personally for me, nothing about it is worth $6000 ($5500 with current discount).
 
I have a 1DX II and it definitely records 30 minutes at a time.

Fantastic camera in every way, and not overpriced for what it does.
 
NorBro said:
5D Mark IV
EOS R
a7III
a7RIII
GH5
GH5s
G9
X-H1
X-T3
Z6
Z7

Honorable mentions: G9, a6300/a6500, X-T2, EM1 Mark II...Blackmagic Pocket 4K (video only).

Give AND take.

===

Personally for me, nothing about it is worth $6000 ($5500 with current discount).
Click to expand...

5D4 and EOS R match in focus quality and color, but as a result of no 4K60P (read out speed related) have worse RS + higher crop in 4K.
The rest of the cameras can't match autofocus or color, the m43 cameras have to work harder to get shallow DOF (less lens choices, especially with AF (not a huge issue since AF isn't currently as usable as DPAF)).
A7III is the closest, though I expect the A7S III with VENICE color to finally match, perhaps pass Canon in color. If Sony gets close in AF and includes really good IBIS, that will be the camera to beat.

Until then, 1DX II, especially with the Filmic Skin picture style- better than log and easier to grade, is the best DSLR camera for video right now. I've done tons of tests and it can hang with the C300 II in terms of color (also optimized) + does 4K60 which the C300 II can't do. In 12-bit RGB 444, the C300 II wins for green screen, though for our YouTube/Instagram videos I don't think anyone will be able to see the difference. To the eye (haven't done chart tests), the 1DX II appears to produce more detail in 4K vs. the C300 II (the C300 II does a bit better in detail for 1080p). C300 II has better DR, built-in NDs, pro audio (XLR), and a better codec, however outside the studio I prefer the smaller & lighter 1DX II.
 
NorBro said:
5D Mark IV
EOS R
a7III
a7RIII
GH5
GH5s
G9
X-H1
X-T3
Z6
Z7

Honorable mentions: G9, a6300/a6500, X-T2, EM1 Mark II...Blackmagic Pocket 4K (video only).

Give AND take.
Click to expand...

Hey, NorBro...

Putting the EF-mount aside for a moment, there are a lot of cameras in that list the don't hit all the marks (which is necessary, because if you only need SOME of the features, then obviously there's lots of options):

4k60 DCI, 1.34x crop, intra frame high bitrate codec, DPAF or equally good, FF stills, high FPS stills shooting and state of the art AF system. Full body with instant ON/OFF and long lasting batteries (relatively speaking).

Even with this open list, I don't see many competitors. And realistically we need to consider the EF mount and color science, which are probably a factor for its customers.
 
jcs said:
5D4 and EOS R match in focus quality and color, but as a result of no 4K60P (read out speed related) have worse RS + higher crop in 4K.
The rest of the cameras can't match autofocus or color, the m43 cameras have to work harder to get shallow DOF (less lens choices, especially with AF (not a huge issue since AF isn't currently as usable as DPAF)).
A7III is the closest, though I expect the A7S III with VENICE color to finally match, perhaps pass Canon in color. If Sony gets close in AF and includes really good IBIS, that will be the camera to beat.

Until then, 1DX II, especially with the Filmic Skin picture style- better than log and easier to grade, is the best DSLR camera for video right now. I've done tons of tests and it can hang with the C300 II in terms of color (also optimized) + does 4K60 which the C300 II can't do. In 12-bit RGB 444, the C300 II wins for green screen, though for our YouTube/Instagram videos I don't think anyone will be able to see the difference. To the eye (haven't done chart tests), the 1DX II appears to produce more detail in 4K vs. the C300 II (the C300 II does a bit better in detail for 1080p). C300 II has better DR, built-in NDs, pro audio (XLR), and a better codec, however outside the studio I prefer the smaller & lighter 1DX II.
Click to expand...

Color is up to the chef...maybe can't match in your brain, which is of course okay. Shallow DOF with MFT isn't an issue.

The 1DX Mark II is probably in the top 10. Absolutely not the best. I mean that's just a crazy thing to say when it has barely any video features besides DPAF and 60p. No 4K FF recording, no IBIS, no LOG, barely any video tools, no programability whatsoever, no usable HFRs, no decent 1080p. It's a good hybrid (even with low MPs for some) and nothing more.

AndreeOnline said:
Hey, NorBro...

Putting the EF-mount aside for a moment, there are a lot of cameras in that list the don't hit all the marks (which is necessary, because if you only need SOME of the features, then obviously there's lots of options):

4k60 DCI, 1.34x crop, intra frame high bitrate codec, DPAF or equally good, FF stills, high FPS stills shooting and state of the art AF system. Full body with instant ON/OFF and long lasting batteries (relatively speaking).

Even with this open list, I don't see many competitors. And realistically we need to consider the EF mount and color science, which are probably a factor for its customers.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're not familiar with the other cameras but several of them have the features you mentioned and also more...but give and take in general as mentioned.

A few of them have 4K60p DCI, some shoot 4K in FF (obviously NO crop), some even have less of one with a certain SB (GH5S, 1.2 or so), some include various quality options, AF and FF stills available on the Sonys (a7RIII having twice the amount of MPs), 1DX Mark II batteries are nothing special (2-2.5 hours max which is comparable to Panasonic and Sony), etc.

Color science...for Canon-exclusive people, which both of you are for sure, I know you love it, but not everyone feels the same as we see by what Sony and Panasonic is doing and their sales numbers. EF lenses may be used on the other systems as well.

---

At the end of the day, we can't be living under a rock in 2018...many cameras are fully loaded for less than $2K, and most people will adapt to certain omissions and/or annoyances in favor of saving two-three-four-thousand dollars.

IMO, it's absolutely not worth $5500 for video and it's silly to think it is. Might as well buy a C200B.
 
NorBro said:
I'm not sure if you're not familiar with the other cameras but several of them have the features you mentioned and also more...
Click to expand...

No, I haven't used any Sony DSLR or mirrorless, neither have I owned any GH5 series cameras. Spending enough time on various video related forums, I feel I know some of the weaknesses and strengths, but I don't try to be snide or imply irony in my question.

But I don't understand which of the cameras you suggest check those boxes? I mean, you can't spread them out over MANY cameras. The 1Dx mkII is one body....

Yes, it becomes a game of trade-offs: someone might accept a MFT mount if they get scopes... or whatever. But my serious question still is: what other (single) camera does what the 1Dx mkII does?

As to the C200: can't do proper stills and is too big, so that doesn't even come close—unfortunately.
 
NorBro said:
Color is up to the chef...maybe can't match in your brain, which is of course okay. Shallow DOF with MFT isn't an issue.

The 1DX Mark II is probably in the top 10. Absolutely not the best. I mean that's just a crazy thing to say when it has barely any video features besides DPAF and 60p. No 4K FF recording, no IBIS, no LOG, barely any video tools, no programability whatsoever, no usable HFRs, no decent 1080p. It's a good hybrid (even with low MPs for some) and nothing more.



I'm not sure if you're not familiar with the other cameras but several of them have the features you mentioned and also more...but give and take in general as mentioned.

A few of them have 4K60p DCI, some shoot 4K in FF (obviously NO crop), some even have less of one with a certain SB (GH5S, 1.2 or so), some include various quality options, AF and FF stills available on the Sonys (a7RIII having twice the amount of MPs), 1DX Mark II batteries are nothing special (2-2.5 hours max which is comparable to Panasonic and Sony), etc.

Color science...for Canon-exclusive people, which both of you are for sure, I know you love it, but not everyone feels the same as we see by what Sony and Panasonic is doing and their sales numbers. EF lenses may be used on the other systems as well.

---

At the end of the day, we can't be living under a rock in 2018...many cameras are fully loaded for less than $2K, and most people will adapt to certain omissions and/or annoyances in favor of saving two-three-four-thousand dollars.

IMO, it's absolutely not worth $5500 for video and it's silly to think it is. Might as well buy a C200B.
Click to expand...

Is color really up to the chef or up to the paying client or audience? We can determine which cameras have the best color by starting from the top. What camera has the best color? (hint: it's the camera always used in all the academy award winning productions) Can other cameras match this top camera in the studio? Indeed they can. So what makes the top camera better? The ability to provide excellent color *outside* the studio, in mixed lighting and challenging lighting conditions.

Can the lessor color quality cameras still look decent with a bit of post work? Sure. But now we've got more time and effort, which is money. Thus in a business situation where over time the lower cost of the camera ends up costing much more due to time and effort in post.

Here's a test I did to match the A7S II to the C300 II and 1DX II. The C300 II and 1DX II took a couple seconds, the A7S II took minutes (and it's still not perfect- lips etc. would require secondaries/masking+tracking to fix). It's a useful exercise to match cameras as you'll see their strengths and weaknesses. I did similar tests with the GH4, and while the GH5x and A7 III have improved in color since I did those tests, from online demos I can see that Canon still has better color science for skin tones, which is the most important aspect of color for a camera. Like everyone else, I'm not a fan of Canon's crippled product strategy, especially in terms of real resolution and detail, however until Sony releases the A7S III with VENICE color science, Canon has the lead in color for the cost and Sony has the lead in slomo for the cost (the 1DX II's 120fps is decent BTW). Panasonic keeps improving in all aspects, as does Black Magic, so it's great to have competition pushing quality forward.

If one needs to also shoot stills, then the best pro-level options are FF Canon and Sony. Moving forward, I'll likely only purchase FF video cameras in the future, until the smaller sensors improve quality/low-light/RS/DR and there's more options for equivalent shallow DOF lenses with DPAF quality AF. Computational cameras will allow relatively small sensors to provide amazing quality, however they are still years away from commercial viability.

Do you have any real-world examples and/or links to sales data which contradict what is written here?
 
Sorry to sound snide, but I just don't understand or agree with your argument.

I misread your comment about one body having ALL of the features, but of course no single camera will provide the EXACT feature set of one body, and you've been on the forums long enough to know that is what people argue and complain about since the beginning of cameras and after every new camera release.

"I wish it had this...I wish it had that."

If that exact feature set is worth $6,000 for you and you can't live without any of those boxes checked then I understand but please note that many other people will not feel the same.

So the cameras above may not have all of the 1DX Mark II's features (with the Canons naturally coming the closest), but I can name 20 other features each of the cameras have that the 1DX Mark II doesn't (seriously...not 1 or 2...20).

---

IMO, I think the only three main features (besides Canon color which is exclusive) to really consider that you can't solve otherwise would be the 4K/60p, AF, and FF stills.

And I say that because the crop isn't that bad and can be solved for the most part with awesome lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm (even though that's not the point).

Here's also a video comparing the two (people in general get worked up about it but it's less of a problem in reality):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFH6bmesqVE

The high bitrate codecs are less of an issue with external recorders and an uncompressed HDMI output with either 8-bit 422 or 10-bit 422.

And of course the 4K/60p, which I think is what places the 1DX Mark II in the top 10 because otherwise there is absolutely no question where it belongs without it.

---

It's all good to disagree, Andree.

If it's worth $6,000 to you then that's all that matters.

It doesn't to me in today's' world, but it was very appealing almost 3 years ago when it was released. And I bought one.

And I returned it.
 
jcs said:
Is color really up to the chef or up to the paying client or audience? We can determine which cameras have the best color by starting from the top. What camera has the best color? (hint: it's the camera always used in all the academy award winning productions) Can other cameras match this top camera in the studio? Indeed they can. So what makes the top camera better? The ability to provide excellent color *outside* the studio, in mixed lighting and challenging lighting conditions.

Can the lessor color quality cameras still look decent with a bit of post work? Sure. But now we've got more time and effort, which is money. Thus in a business situation where over time the lower cost of the camera ends up costing much more due to time and effort in post.

Here's a test I did to match the A7S II to the C300 II and 1DX II. The C300 II and 1DX II took a couple seconds, the A7S II took minutes (and it's still not perfect- lips etc. would require secondaries/masking+tracking to fix). It's a useful exercise to match cameras as you'll see their strengths and weaknesses. I did similar tests with the GH4, and while the GH5x and A7 III have improved in color since I did those tests, from online demos I can see that Canon still has better color science for skin tones, which is the most important aspect of color for a camera. Like everyone else, I'm not a fan of Canon's crippled product strategy, especially in terms of real resolution and detail, however until Sony releases the A7S III with VENICE color science, Canon has the lead in color for the cost and Sony has the lead in slomo for the cost (the 1DX II's 120fps is decent BTW). Panasonic keeps improving in all aspects, as does Black Magic, so it's great to have competition pushing quality forward.

If one needs to also shoot stills, then the best pro-level options are FF Canon and Sony. Moving forward, I'll likely only purchase FF video cameras in the future, until the smaller sensors improve quality/low-light/RS/DR and there's more options for equivalent shallow DOF lenses with DPAF quality AF. Computational cameras will allow relatively small sensors to provide amazing quality, however they are still years away from commercial viability.

Do you have any real-world examples and/or links to sales data which contradict what is written here?
Click to expand...

But you're believing your own opinion as a fact. lol.

Don't you understand that your C300 test is irrelevant? Like do you think your colors are final?

That's what the rest of world should follow?

For the chef (the operator - the client - the audience), Sony's colors might be ready to go out of the box!

What's difficult about understanding this?

And the top camera (ARRI) might have the best colors but that's only a part of the equation. If you have any life experience, you'll understand when something is at the top it's borderline impossible to knock it down. People use it because it's expensive, proven and everyone else shoots on it. If the stars aligned a different way it could have easily been someone else.

P.S. Small sensor cameras have been ready for commercial viability for half a decade.

Here's a BMCC playing with an ALEXA: https://vimeo.com/62832482

As nerdy as you (me) are, we wouldn't be able to breakdown the shots in a million years (first post if interested).
 
Also, the 120p is not decent. I can't take you seriously if you say things like that.

It is absolute garbage and don't understand how you can say that after something like this:

jcs said:
Like everyone else, I'm not a fan of Canon's crippled product strategy, especially in terms of real resolution and detail...
Click to expand...

And maybe google sales figures if you're interested in seeing how cameras like the a7III and GH5/S sales compare to Canon's 1DX Mark II.
 
NorBro said:
But you're believing your own opinion as a fact, lol.

Don't you understand that your C300 test is irrelevant? Like do you think your colors are final?

That's what the rest of world should follow?

For the chef (the operator - the client - the audience), Sony's colors might be ready to go out of the box!

What's difficult about understanding this?

P.S. Small sensor cameras have been ready for commercial viability for half a decade:

Here's a BMCC playing with an ALEXA: https://vimeo.com/62832482

As nerdy as you (me) are, we wouldn't be able to breakdown the shots in a million years (first post if interested).
Click to expand...

Do you see how your comments are directed at me personally, vs. debating the facts and evidence?

BMCC vs. Alexa: as noted previously, matching in the studio is relatively easy. Generalized color in all conditions is much harder. Would you shoot professional stills with a Panasonic? FF Sony is getting closer, though I'd still use FF Canon for now.

I posted facts and examples. Why not post facts and examples which promote a different point of view vs. discussing the person providing the facts and examples?

What's the number one camera for color and why?

How can Canon continue to be the top DSLR with all the crippling?

How did Canon grab a 22% market share in the mirrorless market so fast? https://petapixel.com/2018/11/08/canon-already-has-22-of-full-frame-mirrorless-sales-in-japan/

What's the single most important feature of a camera, based on sales and professional use (stills + video)? Is this a clue why Canon and the top camera out-sell (or rent at the high end) all the other cameras? I sold all my Panasonic and Sony gear once I realized this. Again, will look at the A7S III with VENICE color when released- might be able to replace Canon as a pro-level still+video camera.
 
Sorry, jcs, but I'm just tired of your same color arguments that you argue in every one of these kind of threads and link to the same tests and the same model.

You're not understanding that I am saying color is subjective and that is why I am not trying to disapprove your point because then I would be a hypocrite. When I say best for ARRI, I mean "best" in the sense of that's what the world is going with right now.

And you've also ignored my specific comparison to the 1DX Mark II (not all Canon DSLRs), which everyone knows they can sell 10 million of their $300 starter kits and be on top (which they do).
 
Also for sales...although not everyone shops here I usually like to take a look at the 'Best Sellers' at B&H.

When you look at the links, choose 'Best Sellers' from the menu:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...rigSearch=mirrorless&srtclk=sort&N=4288586281

To be fair the 1DX Mark iI isn't a mirrorless, so here is the DSLR list:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...gSearch=dslr+cameras&srtclk=sort&N=4288586280

It's not a surprise the 'best seller' is a $500 Canon on the DSLR list.

The 1DX Mark II is on page 2, not bad.

---

At the end of the day, all I said was that I thought it wasn't worth the $6,000 and nothing else.

Nothing bad about it and I even reiterated it was a fantastic camera after my cost comment.

But is it worth $6,000 TO ME? Absolutely not.

That's all I have on the matter.
 
NorBro said:
If that exact feature set is worth $6,000 for you and you can't live without any of those boxes checked then I understand but please note that many other people will not feel the same.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't that feature set, but another—that was readily available in cheaper cameras—why would I buy one?

I totally get that people need different things. But when you sort of objectively state that it isn't worth the money, I think you need to provide an alternative that does what it does? I feel I've even opened the door to this possibility, since I don't really follow other brands. Not that I would change system, but I'd nod at a relevant suggestion and admit that some other system offers the same for 70% or 50% of the price.

But I think we might agree on: it's worth its price for people who need what it offers.

Everything else sort of becomes a version of "let me explain why I think you should want/need something else".
 
Yea, I mean I provided a list of cameras that do some of what it does and mentioned no camera has the same exact feature set even if they try to.

The Blackmagic 4K Pocket shoots RAW but I wouldn't use that as an excuse when debating..."show me another camera for $1300 that shoots RAW"...just doesn't make sense because it's missing so many features that doesn't make it useable for many people.

It's like if I drive a Lambo and I'll say show me another Ferrari that has the same engine. (Or whatever, I don't know cars.)

If you're genuinely interested in checking out other systems, the Sonys come the closest with the feature set you like besides 4K/60p. Even the Fuji X-T3 might be worth a consideration as it has a larger sensor, very popular colors in the last few years, great stills, great AF, 4K/60p (both UHD and DCI).

There are many things that would be easier to explain for someone on the phone about why one or the other may be worth to add to your kit based on knowing more about you besides the feature set of the 1DX Mark II, but just too much typing on the forum.

But if you're coming from many years of using the same system - various Canon DSLRs, 1DC, 1DX Mark II - you probably have less and less of an interest to change.

Every time I said it's not worth the money, I always mentioned it was my opinion and maybe I should have said 'for video' a few more times than once.

I think the best way to describe why I think it's not worth it would be to finally mention some negatives (IMO):

For video, it would need to offer more than 11-11.5 stops of DR, more buttons for programability, better 1080/120p (on Sony's or Blackmagic's level), UHD, better HD, some more compression options in 4K, but on the other end frankly even less compression for the 4K/60p as it's only 800Mb/s vs. 500Mb/s for the 2.5x lower 24p framerate, 4K in full-frame, exposure tools, focusing tools, I would like to see more of the touchscreen utilized (it's limited vs the 5D Mark IV's touchscreen), 4K HDMI output, even simple no-brainer things like showing how much the card has left on the screen during recording rather than trying to guess by how many pictures you have left, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top