jcs

Would it be possible for you to do a side-by-side shoot with those two cameras? Including time to grade skin tones + full color grading. Also compare their autofocus functions.
While I'm certain it's possible to match the C100 II and FS5 (I can match the C300 II with the A7S II), I think you may find the C100 II takes less time and effort to make look good, especially in challenging light (multiple colors, non-continuous spectrum, etc.). Color and AF are why we went with the C300 II vs. the FS7 (kept FS700 for 240fps- even with 24Mbps internal codec the quality is good enough).

I made a mistake and bought the RX10 II because I was impressed by the "specs". 
I had the camera for 2 months and hated it. 
Only recently I played with the C300 again. Specs are "bad", but the image and usability is fantastic. Love the C300. 

I can only put on the chart cameras I've actually used extensively.
I'll admit my interest in the little XC10 is growing.
It hasn't had a positive reception from most people. The Camera Store and Canon Rumors voted it their worst of the year. I didn't like the handling when I briefly tried it and I wasn't blown away by the specs or the pricing either. But if the 8bit image really is like a small chip 1D C with great colour it could be useful. The 4K 300Mbit/s 4:2:2 compared to 4K 100Mbit/s 4:2:0 on the Sony RX10 II does seem to look a lot more organic with a better texture, better noise, better colour, more natural detail. So maybe it is worth a closer look after all.

FS-700 menus are fast. FS7 menus are slow- perhaps that's what he meant?

Yes, normal: the noise reduction takes more CPU/battery.

Yes, normal: the noise reduction takes more CPU/battery.

A while ago I noted that FCP X was faster editing 4K material on a 2014 MBP and GT 750M GPU vs. Premiere Pro CC 2015 (latest) on a 12 Core MacPro and GTX 980ti. Today I tried FCP X on the MacPro in FCP X with C300 II 4K files. 4K editing was blazing fast- scrubbing instantaneously. This is full 4K resolution, native files (dual 4K displays). Curious to find the limit, I began stacking 4K clips and was able to get 6 4K clips (cropped so all 6 clips had visible elements) before there was visible slowdown (still usable!). 5 4K clips were fully real-time.
On the same hardware & OSX, Premiere Pro CC 2015 can play one 4K clip in real-time. On the same hardware and Windows 10, playback resolution must be set to 1/2 to get near real-time performance.
Resolve 12 (latest) wasn't able to play the C300 II 4K file in real-time on the MacPro in OSX.
For fast 4K editing, FCP X is currently the champ.

A while ago I noted that FCP X was faster editing 4K material on a 2014 MBP and GT 750M GPU vs. Premiere Pro CC 2015 (latest) on a 12 Core MacPro and GTX 980ti. Today I tried FCP X on the MacPro in FCP X with C300 II 4K files. 4K editing was blazing fast- scrubbing instantaneously. This is full 4K resolution, native files (dual 4K displays). Curious to find the limit, I began stacking 4K clips and was able to get 6 4K clips (cropped so all 6 clips had visible elements) before there was visible slowdown (still usable!). 5 4K clips were fully real-time.
On the same hardware & OSX, Premiere Pro CC 2015 can play one 4K clip in real-time. On the same hardware and Windows 10, playback resolution must be set to 1/2 to get near real-time performance.
Resolve 12 (latest) wasn't able to play the C300 II 4K file in real-time on the MacPro in OSX.
For fast 4K editing, FCP X is currently the champ.

White balance was off on the C100 shot (too green, cold). WB updated and saturation added below. Skin tones look more natural on the C100:
 
For weddings, recommend C100 II: great color and AF.

Lol that's for Beats by Dr Dre, in Culver City (surprised they didn't specify Sony products (they have a big studio in Culver City):  Vegas, Sound Forge etc. ).
(Avid) Pro Tools is the industry standard for pro audio: not a better tool than the competition anymore, but since it's so common among pros, it's still a requirement.
For 4K editing, surprisingly FCPX kicks PP CC 2015 (latest) to the curb (as does Resolve 12). PP can barely play 4K C300II files in real-time at 1/2 display res on a 12 Core MacPro 24GB with a GTX980ti 6GB and fast Samsung SSD, whereas a 2014 MBP 16GB with a GT 750M can play the same files in real-time in FCPX.  Adobe really needs a deep overhaul of their video processing engines.

Lol that's for Beats by Dr Dre, in Culver City (surprised they didn't specify Sony products (they have a big studio in Culver City):  Vegas, Sound Forge etc. ).
(Avid) Pro Tools is the industry standard for pro audio: not a better tool than the competition anymore, but since it's so common among pros, it's still a requirement.
For 4K editing, surprisingly FCPX kicks PP CC 2015 (latest) to the curb (as does Resolve 12). PP can barely play 4K C300II files in real-time at 1/2 display res on a 12 Core MacPro 24GB with a GTX980ti 6GB and fast Samsung SSD, whereas a 2014 MBP 16GB with a GT 750M can play the same files in real-time in FCPX.  Adobe really needs a deep overhaul of their video processing engines.

"more easily" was what i wanted to hear. ::boom:: thank u 

LUTs have value for sure. That said, getting a good look out of camera is the best place to be. A log gamma for recording is good, along with a nice LUT while previewing/shooting if possible. In post, a simple curve which puts the shadows, midtones (skin), and highlights (filmic) in the right place is all that should be needed to get a great look. This is where Canon and ARRI shine- the colors tend to remain true when adjusting levels in post (by whatever means). After shooting with mostly Sony and Panasonic for a few years, I'm happy to be back shooting with Canon (C300II). Sony has gotten better (the A7SII is decent), and Panasonic isn't too shabby either (GH4). However Canon and ARRI (and perhaps now also Red/Dragon (haven't shot with it yet, but it appears their color science is vastly improved)) take far less time in post to get looking good, specifically skintones. LUTs, especially 3D LUTs, can do surprising things (good and bad) and care must be taken to avoid burning time in post.
You used to shoot soft-core for Playboy?

LUTs have value for sure. That said, getting a good look out of camera is the best place to be. A log gamma for recording is good, along with a nice LUT while previewing/shooting if possible. In post, a simple curve which puts the shadows, midtones (skin), and highlights (filmic) in the right place is all that should be needed to get a great look. This is where Canon and ARRI shine- the colors tend to remain true when adjusting levels in post (by whatever means). After shooting with mostly Sony and Panasonic for a few years, I'm happy to be back shooting with Canon (C300II). Sony has gotten better (the A7SII is decent), and Panasonic isn't too shabby either (GH4). However Canon and ARRI (and perhaps now also Red/Dragon (haven't shot with it yet, but it appears their color science is vastly improved)) take far less time in post to get looking good, specifically skintones. LUTs, especially 3D LUTs, can do surprising things (good and bad) and care must be taken to avoid burning time in post.
You used to shoot soft-core for Playboy?

Regraded to match cameras better:
The A7S II was sharpened in post (Sharpen filter @ 64) and color/brightness was matched a little better to the C300 II. There's still more detail in the C300 II, though that's to be expected at 4x the data rate and initial compression methods (410 Mbps ALL-I vs. 100Mbps IPB). The Sony 24-240 is a decently sharp lens, and the only lens I have on hand that can autofocus in fullframe 4K (the Sony 18-200 is crop mode only). We have two Canon 24-105 F4L's, however the Sony can't autofocus it and it's not a super sharp lens.
Sony has really improved the color on the A7S II vs. the A7S. The red/magenta around my eyes is from some kind of allergy after our air-conditioning was worked on in my day-job's office (dust/chemicals or both).
The C300 II's color is excellent, and the extra detail and low rolling shutter will come in handy. Built-in 24-bit pro audio is also helpful for fast shooting (A7S II has an add-on for XLR+Phantom power, might take a look at it, though we'll probably use wireless lavs with the A7S II location shoots). The C300 II's autofocus is on another level- a truly groundbreaking new feature: the killer app for this camera. This level of autofocus will be standard someday (and even better). For now, no one else has it.
Why compare these two cameras? I work with cameras in my day job (artificial intelligence camera systems), and comparisons are always fun and can be helpful in understanding quality. We can confidently use the A7S II as a B-cam and cut between the two cameras without having to spend too much time in post matching them. With only evenings and weekends to shoot, we're looking to speed up production and these two cameras will allow us to shoot and edit fast.

Regraded to match cameras better:
The A7S II was sharpened in post (Sharpen filter @ 64) and color/brightness was matched a little better to the C300 II. There's still more detail in the C300 II, though that's to be expected at 4x the data rate and initial compression methods (410 Mbps ALL-I vs. 100Mbps IPB). The Sony 24-240 is a decently sharp lens, and the only lens I have on hand that can autofocus in fullframe 4K (the Sony 18-200 is crop mode only). We have two Canon 24-105 F4L's, however the Sony can't autofocus it and it's not a super sharp lens.
Sony has really improved the color on the A7S II vs. the A7S. The red/magenta around my eyes is from some kind of allergy after our air-conditioning was worked on in my day-job's office (dust/chemicals or both).
The C300 II's color is excellent, and the extra detail and low rolling shutter will come in handy. Built-in 24-bit pro audio is also helpful for fast shooting (A7S II has an add-on for XLR+Phantom power, might take a look at it, though we'll probably use wireless lavs with the A7S II location shoots). The C300 II's autofocus is on another level- a truly groundbreaking new feature: the killer app for this camera. This level of autofocus will be standard someday (and even better). For now, no one else has it.
Why compare these two cameras? I work with cameras in my day job (artificial intelligence camera systems), and comparisons are always fun and can be helpful in understanding quality. We can confidently use the A7S II as a B-cam and cut between the two cameras without having to spend too much time in post matching them. With only evenings and weekends to shoot, we're looking to speed up production and these two cameras will allow us to shoot and edit fast.

Regraded to match cameras better:
The A7S II was sharpened in post (Sharpen filter @ 64) and color/brightness was matched a little better to the C300 II. There's still more detail in the C300 II, though that's to be expected at 4x the data rate and initial compression methods (410 Mbps ALL-I vs. 100Mbps IPB). The Sony 24-240 is a decently sharp lens, and the only lens I have on hand that can autofocus in fullframe 4K (the Sony 18-200 is crop mode only). We have two Canon 24-105 F4L's, however the Sony can't autofocus it and it's not a super sharp lens.
Sony has really improved the color on the A7S II vs. the A7S. The red/magenta around my eyes is from some kind of allergy after our air-conditioning was worked on in my day-job's office (dust/chemicals or both).
The C300 II's color is excellent, and the extra detail and low rolling shutter will come in handy. Built-in 24-bit pro audio is also helpful for fast shooting (A7S II has an add-on for XLR+Phantom power, might take a look at it, though we'll probably use wireless lavs with the A7S II location shoots). The C300 II's autofocus is on another level- a truly groundbreaking new feature: the killer app for this camera. This level of autofocus will be standard someday (and even better). For now, no one else has it.
Why compare these two cameras? I work with cameras in my day job (artificial intelligence camera systems), and comparisons are always fun and can be helpful in understanding quality. We can confidently use the A7S II as a B-cam and cut between the two cameras without having to spend too much time in post matching them. With only evenings and weekends to shoot, we're looking to speed up production and these two cameras will allow us to shoot and edit fast.

Regraded to match cameras better:
The A7S II was sharpened in post (Sharpen filter @ 64) and color/brightness was matched a little better to the C300 II. There's still more detail in the C300 II, though that's to be expected at 4x the data rate and initial compression methods (410 Mbps ALL-I vs. 100Mbps IPB). The Sony 24-240 is a decently sharp lens, and the only lens I have on hand that can autofocus in fullframe 4K (the Sony 18-200 is crop mode only). We have two Canon 24-105 F4L's, however the Sony can't autofocus it and it's not a super sharp lens.
Sony has really improved the color on the A7S II vs. the A7S. The red/magenta around my eyes is from some kind of allergy after our air-conditioning was worked on in my day-job's office (dust/chemicals or both).
The C300 II's color is excellent, and the extra detail and low rolling shutter will come in handy. Built-in 24-bit pro audio is also helpful for fast shooting (A7S II has an add-on for XLR+Phantom power, might take a look at it, though we'll probably use wireless lavs with the A7S II location shoots). The C300 II's autofocus is on another level- a truly groundbreaking new feature: the killer app for this camera. This level of autofocus will be standard someday (and even better). For now, no one else has it.
Why compare these two cameras? I work with cameras in my day job (artificial intelligence camera systems), and comparisons are always fun and can be helpful in understanding quality. We can confidently use the A7S II as a B-cam and cut between the two cameras without having to spend too much time in post matching them. With only evenings and weekends to shoot, we're looking to speed up production and these two cameras will allow us to shoot and edit fast.

A very simple and quick test. Details in the YouTube description.

A very simple and quick test. Details in the YouTube description.

A very simple and quick test. Details in the YouTube description.

A very simple and quick test. Details in the YouTube description.

A very simple and quick test. Details in the YouTube description.

A very simple and quick test. Details in the YouTube description.

A very simple and quick test. Details in the YouTube description.