avrofilmvideo

Sure. Had two xt2s. Worst purchase in last 2 years.  No DR . Rubbish.  Lost money on  that Fuji crap. Photos perhas, not for video.
XT3 with log will be different, better. Here is gh5 vs Fuji xt3..
Not as scientific but it shows DR.
 
Listen, 
you just a dribble out of your depth here. 
You stay where you are and learn something. You know nothing about me. I Come to Vietnam to shoot every 3-4 months, for money. And other places.
Spent last 27 years shooting for TV and broadcast, studied Film and TV at Uni. My work has been screened in Europe, USA and Australia. Have used and bought variety of cameras.  From $1k to $50k. So like i said. 6ou are out of your depth talking nonsense. 
 

Whatever you are smoking , stop it. 

Re: Z6 vs Z7 - it should be noted the Z6 will have a AA filter (as does the A73) while the Z7 will not (as the A7R3) so could potentially have an impact on sharpness depending on how strong the AA filter is.

Sure. Had two xt2s. Worst purchase in last 2 years.  No DR . Rubbish.  Lost money on  that Fuji crap. Photos perhas, not for video.
XT3 with log will be different, better. Here is gh5 vs Fuji xt3..
Not as scientific but it shows DR.
 
Listen, 
you just a dribble out of your depth here. 
You stay where you are and learn something. You know nothing about me. I Come to Vietnam to shoot every 3-4 months, for money. And other places.
Spent last 27 years shooting for TV and broadcast, studied Film and TV at Uni. My work has been screened in Europe, USA and Australia. Have used and bought variety of cameras.  From $1k to $50k. So like i said. 6ou are out of your depth talking nonsense. 
 

Well after testing fs700 and c300 and c100 i bought Canon 1dc yesterday. A trully visionary camera.

We recently shot a music video for song that was really slow, atmospheric and meandering. We used my FS700 and it was mainly shot in 60fps (with a few shots at 120 and 240) and it looked GREAT because the song was so slow and mellow that the slow motion just complimented it so well.

The FS700 is so flexible in so many ways BESIDES the frame rates. I would NOT even consider the C100 just because it does not have slow motion (sorry, but 60i does not qualify). That is such as joke to not have at least 60p in 2012. For the BMC, I can understand no slow motion because it's only $3000 and it has RAW, but for Canon, no excuses. I think if all you shoot is narrative and events, than 24fps only is fine and so is the C100. But for subjects like music videos, sports, B-Roll for documentaries or just the occasional tricked out shot; slow motion just adds so much drama to those typs of shots that 24fps just cannot do.

Furthermore, after being on Canon for almost 4 years, I am happy to get away from the baked in Canon look. I LOVE the FS700 Cinegammas, especially Cinegamma 1 as it's really nostalgic and filmic looking and so great for grading. Unlike many, I like the form factor of the FS700. I shoot tons of handheld (since it's a look I love) and I do it just bare bones, no rig, no extra EVF, just using what is on the camera and I get great shots handheld.

I think if the C100 was around 5K, it would be a hit, but the FS700 (especially is really hard to beat at that price). Rumor has it that Sony is about to announce a Codec upgrade for the FS700 very soon. Possibly in-camera 4:2:2 50mbps. I certain hope that is the case, and if it is, the C100 will be lost even before it launches.

I think the C100 is really just a camera for the Canon fan boys. For people who want value, they are going to look elsewhere at BMC or Sony.

Maybe in 2013, Canon might finally break the Gaaasssspppppp...... the 60p barrier. For them, it's a long, long time coming.