As a guy who's been working on doing this with both MR and SRH's...
The advantage of MR's is extreme mechanical simplicity. They have 4-8 moving parts, and that's it. Also, the vibrational frequency they generate is high, and thus fairly easy to mitigate with vibration damping. It might appear that they have more electronics which can fail, but I don't think that's true. They are just dead nuts simple, and IMO, more reliable because of it.
SRH's may appear to have only 1 ESC, but each servo actually contains a tiny ESC, and just as with MR's, any of them can fail at any time, and there's not much you can do to predict or prevent that, just as with MR ESC's. Difference is, a good Octo MR design should be able to land safely with an engine failure. On a SRH, if any of the servos fail, it's coming down. And if the main ESC/Motor should fail, technically you could autorotate down, but if you're carrying a heavy load, hovering 20-50 feet off the ground as typical, good luck with that.
Also, the vibrations produced by the SRH are much lower frequency, and this makes it harder to damp the vibration because the frequency spread between the mechanical vibration, and the inertial movements of the aircraft are much closer. It's very difficult to eliminate the vibrational shaking, without getting into two-mass oscillation between the camera system and the airframe.
SRH's have an advantage in efficiency, flight time, payload, airspeed and possibly stability. Basically, they perform better. But everything else about them is a big disadvantage. It's conceivable that a novice could successfully assemble and fly a quad with a camera on it. That's impossible with a SRH. They are simply far too complex.
I'm working on both platforms, but plan to take advantage of their unique strengths. For day-to-day use, low winds, slow movements, an Octo. For higher winds, or higher speeds, longer range or flight time, an SRH.