I like only knowing what the main character knows and following along with the mystery. Find it much more engaging

Like diabetes, I prefer Type 2.

I like both, as long as they're well done.

This is sort of like the Alfred Hitchcock quote about the bomb at breakfast; Type 1 creates suspense. Type 2 is a mystery. Both have a place.

Type 1 is a reverse whodunnit, and it can be used to create a lot of tension, because the question isn't "who did it," but "will they get caught/will the police notice the thing we already know?" Usually, there's some kind of clock is ticking (metaphorically, but sometimes literally), before the criminal gets away or before someone else dies, etc. See every single episode of Columbo or something like Dial M For Murder.

Type 2 is just a regular whodunnit, where the tension is trying to figure out, well, who did it.

Both are great.

Type 2.

This was done perfectly in Stranger Things season 1. We know almost nothing and found out everything along with the characters, amounting a lot to why people love it so much.

Both have their place.

The first type is literally how we got our understanding of irony. Characters in stories would say things that meant a lot more to the audience than it did to them in the moment. This could be used for both comedic and tragic effect. For building tension, it's less about what's around the corner and more about whether or not the character will deal with a situation that we know they're in but they're still ignorant of.

The second type is great for mystery and building tension from the unknown. As the unknown becomes known, we may find it shocking, scary, humorous, or exciting. It's also probably better for setting up major plot twists, but you can still pull off twists with the first type.

Plenty of stories will also incorporate both. For instance, a story may have a set of characters whose perspective we follow, and while following them, we really only see what they see. However, little details may be relevant to another character before they become aware of it.

You could always do a mix of both for different crimes and stuff. Type 2 is probably the best overall but type 1 can be interesting to mix things up sometimes else it can get super repetitive. Also you can always tell part of the crime without giving everything away (like describing a murder without saying who was doing it) so the audience knows the details and is also trying to work out who it was. Mostly it would depend on the crime as I think depending on what it is depends on which way round would be more interesting. Good luck!!

Probably 2. I like who done it's. But what I would like is set up where you know it could be 3-4 people that could of did a crime and then as movie goes more clues come and you can guess along which one did it.