jcs

In Cinema 4D I set up 2 cams. A FullFrame Camera driving a Crop camera. I used releas 13 which is from around 2010, way before the whole Northrup discussion

The Xpresso above is based on Crop x Focal Lenght, Crop x Aperture and (crop)squared x Iso.
Resulting in for instance the properties below.

Three different points of view. 2 x a 50mm f1.4 and 1x 105 mm f2.8 lens in FF
 






You can check them in Photoshop, or better render them out yourself (file attached, Download the demo) but I'm pretty sure they are to the pixel precise.
Let me know how to contact you so I can give you my Paypal info.
CinemaFile.zip

More example pics here: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

I would expect C300 II to have best DR (FS7 similar), motion, RS (6ms), clean blacks (latest FW) of the lot. Skintones and PDAF make a compelling argument for the additional cost.

Ed, you can watch the C500 in action in the current IMAX film, A Beautiful Planet, which was shot entirely on the C500 (and the 1DC for time-lapse):
There is also an interesting article in American Cinematographer on why they chose the C500's uncompressed 4K RAW over other cinema cameras that they tested:
http://www.theasc.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AC-A-Beautiful-Planet.pdf

Some of those Cooke videos you posted last month were gorgeous. And this is just another testament to the quality of both the C300 and the C500. 

Yes, and thats why it needs different algorithms. in your sample, binned version isnt soft. There is really 2k worth of details in the data, its just imprecisely rendered. but Sony is not much interested in spending R&D money on this software puzzle while they are capable of delivering ever faster hardware, though with heat issues. Here is the thing: 30-40mp still is the lowest resolution people are going to demand, and they want 60fps 4k in the same device, which should remain light and compact. With your preferred full-sensor-readout-and-downsamplig method, a lot a lot of data should travel through system and be processed that will generate extra heat, consume extra power, and affect overall reliability. 

C100 II internal recording looks detailed and cinematic-
 

Hobby or for profit? If for profit and you need 4K, C300 II is a great option if you can borrow and pay off quickly. I use the C300 II and don't currently use 4K as we're shooting a lot of content and most consumers don't even have a way to view 4K material. So the C100 II is a great camera if you want to shoot right now, get things done quickly, along with tiny files and very high quality 1080p. RED cameras are a totally different experience and use case vs. a Canon Cx00 (number one, no PDAF).
I use the 1DX II only for short interviews and initially 4K60p (until I switched everything over to 1080p to speed up production). Since the 1DX II 1080p isn't very good, 4K24p must be used and downscaled to 1080p in post. This looks great however the files are huge. The C100 II is a much better choice for those on a budget looking for a good reliable all around performer. For long form 30min plus- C100 II all the way. You don't need 4K.

Haha I love audio. Here's a big pile of ego: for my day job I wrote real-time audio DSP software for years and wrote the real-time audio engine for MySpace Music's Karaoke software. Also play acoustic and electric guitar and compose on keyboards (basic stuff using Logic X for our video productions; now hiring more experienced folks as I'm not fast enough at my skill level). Familiar with signal processing theory (and applications writing low level code) through music theory and intuitively understand what sounds good by ear.
Years ago a friend put a pair of Stax electrostatic speakers on my head through a Carver Magnetic Field Amplifier after utilizing certain plant compounds and it blew my mind! Later I listened through Stax headphones at NASA Ames Research Center through a Convolvotron 3D VR system with a Polhemus 3D tracker- another level of audio mind-blowningness. Finally, hearing Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus Speakers and similar in prepared rooms (including an anechoic mixing room at GTE Imagetrek) topped out the high-end audio listening experience. As time progressed, consumers got used to and were OK with highly compressed MP3/AAC audio on comparatively very low quality headphones and/or home speakers. I realized the 99% of people didn't care about ultra high quality audio and would never hear audio at these levels of quality. Additionally, listening to crap audio helps keep the high end stuff sounding killer. Otherwise there's a never-ending chase for more quality. Steve Martin summed it up here with the Googolphonic (note the proper spelling before Google bunged it up :)).
After years of software and product development, I'm focused on creating and using the simplest systems possible, where quality is balanced with cost and system complexity. For our own productions for Cosmic Flow (my current day job, software tech is now part time), in-camera audio is ideal. C300 II preamps are good enough, and so is the $500 Audix (I use it with the Schoeps for two channels vs. 2 Schoeps). Even the A7S II's preamps are good enough when using the Sennheiser G3 wireless on location. For separate audio I wouldn't use anything less than a Sound Devices 702 (and would hire a sound person). I used to use an RME Fireface 800 for computer audio, then replaced it with a $140 FocusRite Scarlet 2i2 (v1) which actually has better sounding preamps. After many years the budget 2i2 hardware crapped out and I replaced it with a Sound Devices USBPre2 I had purchased as a tool to get high-quality preamps into DSLRs years ago. The USBPre2 doesn't turn off when the computer is in sleep so I had to purchase a USB switch (not a big deal but was surprisingly hard to find a USB switch that cut power and handled data lines properly too- that was the only one I found that works).  
After so many years of going deep in tech, for the final product, and in the case of video, the story and emotion are far more important.
The C100 II with an Audix, Shure, Audio Technica, or Rode mic, and a Mogami or similar quality cable (tried budget cables- not worth it), will provide a perfect balance of good enough quality, low system complexity, and highly versatile usability to be just about perfect for the OP and others wanting to get things done quickly with low effort, low cost, low headache, and least time to produce something cool. Ultimately, we want the gear to just work and get out of the way of the creative process.

I'd say it depends on your needs and style of shooting.
If you're in a sound-controlled room, yes you can get away with a quality mic into a quality recorder. 
But when you increase the number of subjects/actors, or need better isolation because of the shooting environment, or meet the expectations of the client or studio, then you need more tools. in many situations a mixer would be essential - regardless of how good a cameras preamps are.
In the end, that's why you really do need a person for location /production sound, for the majority of shoots. You need experience and the tools to capture sound in the most appropriate way.
Can you shoot without one? Sure. But it would have to be very limited to a specific situation, or your results will be compromised. Maybe that's ok - I know eng guys often use a mic with a wider pattern and just shoot close with a wide lens. Depends on your needs and limitations.
But for a more dynamic single operator you should have a mic with decent reach and rejection, and two sets of wireless mics. And a mixer with quality preamps.
Even for a single subject interview in a treated environment, I would send a lav into one channel and the mounted/boomed mic into the other, for safety. Again, clipping, self-noise, batteries, too many potential problems, avoided with not much more effort.
It depends on the project, but sometimes getting out of the way and letting the story come through means doing things right, which can mean hiring a sound guy. Even if that sound guy is your buddy you roped into holding a mic for eight hours.
 

Haha I love audio. Here's a big pile of ego: for my day job I wrote real-time audio DSP software for years and wrote the real-time audio engine for MySpace Music's Karaoke software. Also play acoustic and electric guitar and compose on keyboards (basic stuff using Logic X for our video productions; now hiring more experienced folks as I'm not fast enough at my skill level). Familiar with signal processing theory (and applications writing low level code) through music theory and intuitively understand what sounds good by ear.
Years ago a friend put a pair of Stax electrostatic speakers on my head through a Carver Magnetic Field Amplifier after utilizing certain plant compounds and it blew my mind! Later I listened through Stax headphones at NASA Ames Research Center through a Convolvotron 3D VR system with a Polhemus 3D tracker- another level of audio mind-blowningness. Finally, hearing Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus Speakers and similar in prepared rooms (including an anechoic mixing room at GTE Imagetrek) topped out the high-end audio listening experience. As time progressed, consumers got used to and were OK with highly compressed MP3/AAC audio on comparatively very low quality headphones and/or home speakers. I realized the 99% of people didn't care about ultra high quality audio and would never hear audio at these levels of quality. Additionally, listening to crap audio helps keep the high end stuff sounding killer. Otherwise there's a never-ending chase for more quality. Steve Martin summed it up here with the Googolphonic (note the proper spelling before Google bunged it up :)).
After years of software and product development, I'm focused on creating and using the simplest systems possible, where quality is balanced with cost and system complexity. For our own productions for Cosmic Flow (my current day job, software tech is now part time), in-camera audio is ideal. C300 II preamps are good enough, and so is the $500 Audix (I use it with the Schoeps for two channels vs. 2 Schoeps). Even the A7S II's preamps are good enough when using the Sennheiser G3 wireless on location. For separate audio I wouldn't use anything less than a Sound Devices 702 (and would hire a sound person). I used to use an RME Fireface 800 for computer audio, then replaced it with a $140 FocusRite Scarlet 2i2 (v1) which actually has better sounding preamps. After many years the budget 2i2 hardware crapped out and I replaced it with a Sound Devices USBPre2 I had purchased as a tool to get high-quality preamps into DSLRs years ago. The USBPre2 doesn't turn off when the computer is in sleep so I had to purchase a USB switch (not a big deal but was surprisingly hard to find a USB switch that cut power and handled data lines properly too- that was the only one I found that works).  
After so many years of going deep in tech, for the final product, and in the case of video, the story and emotion are far more important.
The C100 II with an Audix, Shure, Audio Technica, or Rode mic, and a Mogami or similar quality cable (tried budget cables- not worth it), will provide a perfect balance of good enough quality, low system complexity, and highly versatile usability to be just about perfect for the OP and others wanting to get things done quickly with low effort, low cost, low headache, and least time to produce something cool. Ultimately, we want the gear to just work and get out of the way of the creative process.

On the Canon side.  5DMK3 Raw is "technically" speaking better image than the C100 image spec wise but requires more effort to procure.  It's raw so you need to manage it as with any other raw workflow.  You can grade it and correct it as you wish without breaking the image.  The DNGs just have more color and weight to them.  The C100 is very very close but has a "different" image to it since it's not full frame.  

5D3 Raw
 
Below... 
XC10 HD wide shot
C100MK2 front medium
5D3 RAW side shots
Excuse the audio and the poor grading on the XC10...I didn't have the XC10 matched to the other cameras.
Here is my breakdown of what I would rate over a C100 image in the under $4000 price range.
5DMK3 Raw > C100
5DMK4 4K > C100 *in descent light
Some ungraded neutral profile 5DMK4 4K frames.  When exposed correctly the 5D4 image is quite stunning. 

XC10 4K > C100 *in good light
I would even rate the XC10's 4K image over the C100 image...but again only in good lighting conditions.  My primary use for the C100 is ease of use when covering long form events, docs and to give me an image close enough to 5Draw in camera, save hard-drive space and for a quick workflow turnarounds when shooting in all lighting conditions. The 5DMK3,MK4 nor the XC10 can deliver on this like the C100 can.  

You must definitely be a video guy, raw dogging a schoeps into your dirty camera's xlrs. 
I previously owned that mic, and it's beautifully clean and transparent. But it can sound thin and it's pickup pattern is both forgiving and promiscuous. No mic can read your mind. Not a problem in a studio, but like you noted, on location it's different, you really need to maximize that s/n: mic placement, proper gain staging, etc., and you need the right tools. You really need to raise the gain if you can't boom tight enough, which is often on an indie set, where challenging conditions (lack of noise control, short crew, limited takes, etc.) calls for quality mixers and recorders. 
And I'd highly recommend redundant audio for a one man band, for safety. Doesn't have to be complex. 

The challenge you'll find with the 1DX II is that if just want good 1080p, you have to shoot 4K and downscale in post. The 4K files are of course gorgeous (as is the 4K60p), however they are also huge, and even with very powerful computers NLEs like PP CC have trouble playing these 4K files in real time (not an issue with FCPX on the same hardware- even 4K60p plays like butter). For short interviews/shots and/or when you can frequently offload to hard drives, it's not really an issue. However if you need to shoot a live event that is long, you're out of luck unless you can afford to miss some footage when switching cards (and don't run out of cards).
As for stills, the 5D3 has higher resolution and I haven't seen any DR advantages during real-world shooting giving the 1DX II an advantage (I'm sure it's there I just haven't seen or tested it). For sports style shooting, absolutely the 1DX II is a better choice.
I haven't shot on the C100 II, however the C300 II is a superior video camera to the 1DX II. The 1080p is gorgeous and the files are small. The 1DX II 1080p is soft and aliased, barely OK for closeups but too soft and aliased for wides. The C100 II 1080p is also gorgeous and the files are tiny. A really good fit given the OPs original specs. The C100 II is S35 and lenses like the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and Canon 17-55 F2.8 (used extensively in Cartel Land) are great for low light and run & gun.

If I can match an A7S II to the 1DX II and C300 II (actually all to each other), I'm sure it would be fairly easy to match the XC10 and 80D using similar/same picture profiles (and maybe even no post work needed).

Yes, that's the difference. To be honest it won't really make a difference either way except for some extreme cases (and/or NLE issues which don't handle levels properly). Try it both ways in your NLE to find out.

I bought a C100 and a 5D Mark III right after they came out. Sold the 5D pretty quickly although the RAW looked good (not as good as the C100 other than its shallow depth of field "FF" look, which was impossible to pull focus with so whatever). The idea that the 5D III's RAW is technically a better image is a misconception fueled by people who are incompetent on set or in post. Both have great images, though, and the quality is really pretty close.
I've used almost everything on the market and it's the combination of great ergonomics and a good image without much work in post that's led me to not replace the aging C100. I feel like nothing else on the market has an image that's better in a meaningful way without some sacrifice. Sony is technically a bit better (a stop better highlight detail, a stop faster native ISO) but the ergonomics and workflows are dodgy and the color is hard to work with on the high end and on the low end it's a real nightmare with overheating and SLOG 2 having awful color (the Kodak emulation LUT on the F5 is decent, however) and the ergonomics are awful. The Red is expensive and difficult to work with on set and in post, awful in low light, and actually had slightly less dynamic range than the C300 etc. until the Dragon and the new color processing. The Red M had like 8-10 stops of DR, MX about 11-12, and color wasn't great then. And still it's behind Canon and Arri but it does become subjective because its looks is digital, not film emulation. The GH4 is not bad IMO but its 1080p is surprisingly soft (the 4k is fine but you get a bit of crop) and the ergonomics I don't love and it's not super reliable. But it's not bad at all.
But they're all fine. I guess for me if I want a better image the next meaningful step up from the c series is renting an Alexa, but that's also a pain to use. I sort of worried about minor differences until I tried something that was actually different and now for me it's Alexa or bust (though the C300 Mk II look pretty nice after the firmware update–haven't tried it with the new firmware though!).
I don't care for the "FF" look, but if you want shallow depth of field get some f1.4 or f1.8 lenses and an 80D to go with the C100 I'd say. The 80D is easy to use for video and the autofocus is useful for close ups (where sharpness isn't important) and you can get APS-C lenses like the new Sigmas that are sharp and fast enough to match f2.8 on FF and for cheaper. And the DR is RAW is good on the 80D for stills.
Also the Canon RAW workflow is the exact opposite of the cinema series workflow–a nightmare, and that's really why I abandoned it. The 5D II is nice for stills, but has poor DR in RAW compared with the 80D. I'd get an 80D and a C100 Mk II, but I think part of it is that I'm lazy and I do care about color more than most people (consistently score off the charts in color vision tests).
I wouldn't bother with a 1DXII as a video camera. Same very limited dynamic range as other Canon dSLRs. 1DC could be nice, but it lacks the efficient low bitrate codec.

My latest test of the Canon 1dx 2 - Now I understand people talking about Canon colours - they are nice. 
 

One of the reasons models, actors, and clients like Canon, and they don't really know why, is that it is softer, and when there is no visible aliasing, looks more like film. A very sharp still image can look great for a landscape or a young model/actor with perfect makeup (or Photoshop). Otherwise 'just enough detail' is best along with zero digital artifacts- looks organic/analog. Additionally, when a very sharp image moves the pixels will 'dance' and the resulting effect is a kind of temporal aliasing, which looks more like video than film. Slightly Gaussian blurring a sharp video then adding film grain can help reduce the temporal aliasing, since the noise is random and not associated with camera/scene element movement.
At the highest end of cinema film production, they use various forms of diffusion/softening filters all the time on ARRI, RED, F55/65 especially when filming close ups (these filters can of course be used on any production; we use a Tiffen Black Pro Mist (you can also use a pantyhose)).

More options are of course better. Canon is very popular because of the way people and skin tones look. Most consumers don't really know or care about resolution/sharpness. As long as it's not super blurry, they'll be happy or won't notice. A lot of movies shot on film look very soft compared to current digital acquisition. However the film grain creates pleasing texture and a kind of false detail that doesn't look like digital aliasing- very organic.
I just shot a red carpet event in Hollywood on the A7S II and it looked pretty good once the WB and custom profile were carefully set (Cine2 with SGamut3.cine color + other tweaks). Hours of footage were shot and the client appreciated the low light performance, skin tones looked pretty good (matched fairly well to what I saw live), and the files were very small. However in post there's not much flexibility to grade, and as others have noted Sony still looks more like video than Canon. If the 1DX II shot better 1080p I would have used it for the interviews on the red carpet (well lit with ARRI lights) because people really do look better with Canon/ARRI and celebrities are very sensitive about how they look. For shorter events and/or with a DIT running memory card dumps, 1DX II 4K would have looked amazing, especially for the files sizes compared to the RED that was shooting RAW (he also had major /battery/power/boot up time/ limitations for a live event).
The theater shots were very low light; nothing can touch the A7S II right now in that situation (so I would have had to bring two cameras). An A7S III with better IBIS, Sony's '4D' AF closer to Canon's PDAF, and skin tones close enough to Canon/ARRI, will make a lot of people very happy. Right now there's nothing on the market that can compete with what the 1DX II can provide: amazing skin tones, sharp/detailed enough 4K (even though not really resolving 4K of detail), market leading AF (PDAF), amazing automatic white balance* (useful in mixed lighting and live/docu events), native EF lens support with PDAF (no fiddly adapters without usable AF), very high reliability, very short boot time, and a decent balance of 4K image quality and file size (compared to say a RED).
* it's possible Canon is looking for faces/skintones and optimizing WB for skin at the expense of other colors (which makes for example strong reds and blues to look quite different). Latest Canon cameras can optimize for 'ambient' WB as well as the traditional method (whites).

One of the reasons models, actors, and clients like Canon, and they don't really know why, is that it is softer, and when there is no visible aliasing, looks more like film. A very sharp still image can look great for a landscape or a young model/actor with perfect makeup (or Photoshop). Otherwise 'just enough detail' is best along with zero digital artifacts- looks organic/analog. Additionally, when a very sharp image moves the pixels will 'dance' and the resulting effect is a kind of temporal aliasing, which looks more like video than film. Slightly Gaussian blurring a sharp video then adding film grain can help reduce the temporal aliasing, since the noise is random and not associated with camera/scene element movement.
At the highest end of cinema film production, they use various forms of diffusion/softening filters all the time on ARRI, RED, F55/65 especially when filming close ups (these filters can of course be used on any production; we use a Tiffen Black Pro Mist (you can also use a pantyhose)).

Crop Factor is the ratio of diagonals for the optical image circles. Width ratio and/or area ratios are meaningless as they don't relate to the actual optical imaging circles, especially when using the correct Crop Factor for matching cameras and lenses for specific shots and DOF via Equivalence math. 
Right now an A7S II or A7R II (much better AF) along with a Canon 5D III could work really well. Use the 5D III to shoot raw stills of the scenes. Then in post color match the stills to the A7x II footage. I've done this by eye and it's not that hard: with the 1DX II and C300 II to the A7S II:
Note that no one could tell which camera was which for sure until I gave the answers. It might also be possible to create a 3D LUT for A7x II to Canon, however shooting reference raw stills will probably work better.

1dx ii
 

We replaced our backup 5D3 with a 1DX II: shooting both stills and video. The 1DX II / 1DC are great 'stealth' video cameras. Our main video camera is now the C300 II. PDAF, a swivel screen, pro audio, great 1080p (4K is not need for our current projects and Premiere still struggles with 4K material (each PP CC update is hit or miss- sometimes 4K works better, sometimes worse. FCPX handles 4K fine (even with high quality rendering / no transcoding)). Thus the C100 II really is a great deal right now- fantastic 1080p, pro audio, swivel screen, PDAF, tiny files, Canon color, etc.

We replaced our backup 5D3 with a 1DX II: shooting both stills and video. The 1DX II / 1DC are great 'stealth' video cameras. Our main video camera is now the C300 II. PDAF, a swivel screen, pro audio, great 1080p (4K is not need for our current projects and Premiere still struggles with 4K material (each PP CC update is hit or miss- sometimes 4K works better, sometimes worse. FCPX handles 4K fine (even with high quality rendering / no transcoding)). Thus the C100 II really is a great deal right now- fantastic 1080p, pro audio, swivel screen, PDAF, tiny files, Canon color, etc.