M6 mk ii vs. R7 for the video

Tomsop wrote:

I understand this being a forum for the M line people want to justify staying with the M. I have M lenses too. However considering the switch and most people don't talk about video. I want to use the camera for multiple things including video. I don't know much about the specs other than they say the 30P and 24P is oversampled on the r7 and the only 4K mode on the M6 mk. ii is 30P. I also notice almost no one posts examples of videos and it is hard to find any representations of quality video of M6 mk. ii on YouTube.

Are people staying with M6 and are happy with the quality of their 4k video? Are others relying on video as the reason to leave the m6 mk. II?

I also want to know if the video on the R7 is really that good - I was not impressed with the ice rink examples they posted in the reviews. I may have to wait to see people posting video with the R7 - is anyone vary familiar with video specs between different cameras able to weigh in on this?

Only a small handful of people had access to the R7. All we can do is comment on specifications.

If you plan on doing anything hand-held, the R7 clearly has an advantage with its sensor stabilization.

If you care about recording internally for more than 30 minutes per clip, the R7 is the clear option. I have a workaround on the M6ii, but it would negate the price difference between the two cameras (Atomos Ninja V).

Personally I'm fine with the M6ii's 4k quality, but I'm coming from using the M50. At the very least it's a step up from the M50 when the M50 is used at 1080p to get DPAF. Not going to spend the time finding examples out there, but the M6ii's pixel binned approach is noticeably less sharp than cameras that take higher than 4k and down sample. The benefit the M6ii gets is that rolling shutter seems fine compared to Sony's aps-c which have a lot of wobble/jello at 4k when panned or have fast moving subjects in the frame.

The only 4k mode being 30p on the M6ii relates to HDMI out. Canon added firmware to correct their mishap by initially not including 24p. I personally use 30p so can't recall specifics and I'm typing this out on a phone.

Would I keep using the M6ii, yes. Do I want some of the things the R7 has, yes. Is it worth $1500... Depends.

In my opinion anything you are not impressed with seeing about the R7, you would be less impressed with the M6ii.

What do I do? Most of my indoor video is recorded with the M6ii and an Atomos Ninja V. The Ninja V is the thing recording. I use h.265 HEVC in 8-bit 4:2:0 and it feels fine to me, but I'm not trying to push the footage. Pretty sure the R7 has that codec, but not sure on how it works in practice. Another reason I'm curious about the R7. Saving my video projects adds up fast in storage. Little things like this help. I Franky don't know how these people manage 10-bit 4:2:2 prores or whatever unless they trash their projects afterward.

M6ii's 4k footage adds up fast storage wise, and again, has a 30 minute per clip limiter.

Another likely win for the R7 is the battery used compared to the M6ii's LP-E17. I'd expect longer mobile video sessions to some degree, but the R7 is powering more stuff, so not sure (EVF, IBIS)

One thing I don't know about the R7 but would like to know is if the dual SD card slots are capable of doing duplicate recording of video. I doubt it given Canon's track record on that feature but if it does then that would be a very welcome feature for serious video work.

The 16mm f/2.8 makes RF kinda interesting, but it is lacking something like the 11-22mm right now.

There is a lot more I could say like the different screen articulation, headphone jack on the R7, etc... But I do see the R7 as a complete video work upgrade not considering size differences if that's a requirement. The M6ii would be better on a gimbal IMO... But the R7 would need one in fewer cases.