rygenova

In the video quality charts from 2014 it's noted that the 1DC's ranking is based on "lightly graded only."  Does it not grade well or have you reversed your decision about that?
On a different note, I think I must be the only person who thinks that the a7s is the most overrated camera of 2014.  It's gotten to the point where the differences in image quality between these budget "film making" cameras is difficult to truly discern without side-by-side comparisons and really focusing on minute aspects of the image.  The a7s has some strengths in extreme circumstances (e.g. low light and high dynamic range shots), but if we're talking about bang for your buck, the GH4's image is just about on par with the a7s in most cases and shoots 4K in a more compact package for about 1/3 of the price.  Needing to "see in the dark" is a feature that I don't see as very useful for narrative film or that I'd use except in niche circumstances.  Even the BMCC, which I think is the worst for low light, can still produce fine low light shots if handled correctly.  I've rarely seen any a7s footage that I feel justifies the extra $3K over the GH4.  
In my mind, there's no doubt from the footage I've seen that the 1DC is in a different class than the GH4, A7s, NX1, or even FS7 if we're talking about making a narrative film that emulates the Hollywood look. Watch a good quality download on your TV instead of pixel peeping and most of these cameras still have some sort of indescribable lack of film-like quality to them, while the 1DC footage looks much more like something straight out of Hollywood.
I'm not a Canon fanboy and I really like my GH4, but I feel like too many people on forums and such are trying to tout some cameras, especially the a7s, as being far superior to higher priced cameras.  If price were not a factor I'd surely trade my GH4 for a 1DC.  

Curious as to whether this thing will be prohibitively expensive or how much Sony will cripple it in order to sell it at a more affordable price point.  
 
If it is in the $10,000+ price range and not crippled, what really differentiates it from an F5?
 
Probably way too much to ask for, but I'm hoping for "F55 quality" 10-bit internal 4K  with all the pro connections (XLR, SDI, etc) stripped off to lower the cost in a DSLR body for around $5K.  With the Blackmagic 4K cam and GH4 at much lower price points and similar specs, I don't think it's unrealistic, but I doubt Sony would do it.  Could create a big market for Sony FZ, FE, and A mount lenses though.
 
I'd love to see what the new Sony 55 f/1.8 is capable of on a great camera.

I've had the Black Magic Cinema Camera (EF version) since April, coming from a hacked GH2. I kind of jumped on the BMCC fanboy bandwagon and jumped into the camera without really studying other options at the time. It's capable of some pretty great images, but overall, I just don't like the camera. It stinks for any type of handheld shooting, the crop factor is a pain to deal with, pretty much every hard drive I own is full of RAW footage even though I try to delete what I'm not using, and it takes a ton of time just to grade a shot to get it to look "normal" and sync audio from my external recorder. No built in ND's (coupled with a native ISO of 800), lack of changeable battery, and poor audio with no audio meters is annoying as well. Like I said, the image quality can be great, but it is just no fun to shoot with and there is so much not to like about the camera. Sometimes I like to just pick up my camera and shoot something, but with the BMCC, this is really impractical.
I'm not a professional, just an amateur/enthusiast obsessed with great video quality. I'm primarily looking for something that has a large sensor and can produce sharp, detailed images with minimal noise. I'd like something good for narrative with the bonus of having something I can run and gun with if I want to. I can hold my own with basic color grading, but I'm by no means highly skilled at it, so I feel I wouldn't lose too much if I no longer had RAW.
I've narrowed my options to either selling the BMCC and buying a C100 or FS100, or sucking it up and keeping the BMCC. As for price I feel they are all somewhat similar. If I keep the BMCC I need to still buy ND's, a battery solution, a better rig for handheld, a wider lens, and probably some type of storage array for all this footage I'm amassing. For the FS100 I'd need to add the Speed Booster and ND's to get it up to the C100 configuration.
For the C100, I'd probably pick up an Atomos recorder at some point in the future. For the FS100 I'd be shooting only with the Speed Booster as I have only EF glass.
From what I've read it seems like the C100 should be an easy choice over the FS100, but I feel like the FS100 looks much more cinematic (maybe it's just that I've stumbled upon videos made by FS100 users with better skills than the C100 users? Or maybe it's just because the FS100 has been out longer?). Honestly all of these very cinematic pieces shot with the FS100 are pretty much the only reason it's on my radar as otherwise I believe the C100 to be superior.
Any advice from people who have shot with either camera would be much appreciated. Is the C100 just as good or better than the FS100 when it comes to image quality?
C100 Concerns: -Possibly not as cinematic as the FS100
FS100 Concerns: -Would only be shooting with the Speed Booster (bugs/issues/etc. with this?) -It's a couple year old camera, so I'd probably be disappointed if Sony released a replacement shortly after I bought one -No ND's -Form factor not as much to my liking as the C100