R7 versus the M6 ii for 4K Video Quality: A Test

These two cameras have essentially the same sensor. And both shoot 4K 30p. Is the R7 an upgrade in terms of video quality?

I have both cameras. I shot the same scene with both cameras using the same lens (the good Canon EF S 15-85mm). Same settings on both cameras - 1/60th shutter, auto ISO - I used 500 and 4000 (low light), f4 at 24mm for the lens.

I used the Standard Picture profile for both, and the fine 4K 30 for the R7 (there is only one option for the M6 ii). These are full-frame.

The first thing I found is that with these settings, the codecs were exactly the same, and so the clips from each could be merged together without re-compression. And, visibly in terms of color, the clips look absolutely identical. The difference is only that the oversampled 4K from the R7 yields a crisper image than the line-skipped 4K from the M6 ii.

But, you can judge for yourself from this video, shot in good and low light:

Note, again, that the clips were merged without re-compression (that is often not avoided in videos). Thus, the only compression is from YouTube. View at 4K.

You might not see the difference, and it is subtle but it is visible.

However, the higher-resolving 4K 30p of the R7 is not its only advantage: you can shoot in Clog3 to get much higher dynamic range from the same sensor and also shoot (in that mode) in 10bit 422 color. The M6 ii has only 8bit 420 color. There is also no artificial 29-minute limit on video clips and overheating does not seem to be an issue.

The R7 also has an excellent 4K 60p crop mode. And is has a very effective IBIS, great for handheld quality-preserving stabilization. It does not have the compact form of the M6 ii. It is a different beast.