andrgl

This test looks amazing.  If I had my money for best professional sub-10k camera for 2016, the red raven trumps over the Ursa 4.6k.
But that is just based on one test video, that looks better than the music videos shot on the Red Weapon.
The only way to really tell if a camera is better than another is to see boring test videos - comparisons between cameras.  Highlight handling.  Low light handling.  Skin tone test.  Mixed lighting tests. Resolution test.
Boring boring stuff.
Until then, I still have my red one mx - which is great, not good at highlight handling, but I would be curious to do a side by side.  See the motion.  See how it all feels next to each other.
Here's a short film I shot on the Red One MX.  This is with lighting.  At night. Will the Red Raven look better?  What are the strengths of the Raven over the Red One MX?  The weaknesses?  Are there going to be fan noise problems like the Red Epic dragon?  Cabling issues - only one hd-sdi port?  Hard to get to timecode port and weird audio ports?
These are all things to know before drolling over something.
https://vimeo.com/127683476
 
 

This is one of those times when story doesn't matter. People just want to see how it'll look in a pro environment. Look's damn good in my opinion.

Harsh crowd... Note to RED, next time, give it to someone who only knows how to shoot outdoors, without lighting... that seems to get the juices running.
Are people actually upset that they are showcasing how the footage will look in a professional environment? This is far more interesting than the recent BM4.6K footage that could have been done by anyone capable of hitting the on/off switch. I actually want to see how the skintones and colour will look with lighting. Is it over stylised and narratively meaningless? Sure... Is it useful for the person looking to purchase, hell yea. (and I generally hate RED's marketing ways and means).

Well I think the footage looked superb.  Each shot was clearly thought out to show the cameras capabilities.  Surely the idea is to show the camera in its best light.  This ain't a toy, its a c-camera/drone camera for professionals who want to see what the camera will do when lit/shot and processed to the best it can be.  If the camera was m4/3 mount allowing use of a speed booster, as well as having the need and budget for such a camera I'd be ordering one straight away.  
well done to RED for getting this at the price point it is!  

brilliant link and example.  You don't need to hit people over the head with color theory.  Less is more.
HOWEVER
I think too many things are really desaturated. I miss the rich colors of kodak film.  The whole Red look with a muted palette drives me bonkers.  

i agree!
i find this to be a fascinating example for several reasons; not the least of which is that the recoloring of this comic, The Killing Joke (1988), was done in 2008 by Brian Bolland, the extremely talented man who did the pencils in the first place – the guy who drew it~!
hes no amateur, but he missed the boat here didnt he?
to approach this as a black and white page, like a coloring book, i feel that its a natural first instinct to start coloring things the colors that they are, as seen on the right above and below. but our job is to do more with color... like....... an artist lol
here, commissioner jim gordon is being driven to insanity by the joker. on the left we see what he feels. the page on the right is clearly unemotional and anemic in comparison

now, again, this is a metaphor in more ways than one when it comes to filmmaking, but its a literal point in terms of two dimensional representational imagery

fascinating
i did this, and i gotta say, i found the look of the show – including all aspects of art direction which appear on screen – to be completely forgettable and boring
i watched several different clips from season one and two and my general critique is that color and lighting are not being used dramatically in terms of storytelling in a lot of the shots
dont get me wrong, its clearly technically sound, but its boring
but boring in a very pretty, attractive way, which forces you to look at it more than through it – like a window. and this is a disconnect in terms of immersion and suspension of disbelief – storytelling
in general it also looks too much like crappy-poo reality, which we all know too well
so my assessment is that you would like this show more if color was used in a more meaningful way
let me blow your mind with an analogy:

which is better? why? more here
 

I think the camera you choose (from this list and similar models) is fairly meaningless. 
I could wake up tomorrow and find someone wanted me to shoot this exact gig. I wouldn't go out and buy a camera specifically for it. If this one project is all you'll ever do in your career, focus on the exterior setting and how you'll get good, clear shots of industrial work on a location. Do you need close-up gear? Overhead shots? Do you need audio? Do they want it to look sort of cool and stylized (jib, slider) or strictly informative/training style? How about scrims, reflectors, negative fill so your outdoor shots can be clear and not confusing?
If you want to shoot all kinds of commercial gigs over the next couple years, get something that can handle a variety of work.
There are only two really major differences in the tools for these gigs - a "video" camera (fixed power zoom, XLR jacks, viewfinder, built-in ND) which is good for more event and news-style shooting but (until you really spend some $$) has a more "video" look (which can be improved by a good operator)… or a more "pretty" camera - interchangeable lenses, control of DOF, larger sensor for a more "filmic" look than most "video" cams. DSLR, BMC, etc. And you need stills, so DSLR is likely the way to go for you. And you'll need a good tripod at the least, and possible good audio gear - field recorder, mic and blimp.
Your list is all over the place in sensor size - do you care about the look from the sensor? And a bigger question is do you (or will you soon) need 4K for reframing, keying, stabilizing. Either way, look into something you can build on and make money with for at least a couple years. Heck, a Nikon D7100 or 7200 would handle this gig fine. 

Right dude?
I get a camera with a 5" 1080 folding monitor, 4.6k sensor able to capture 15 stops of light, slo-mo, and an internal 10-bit or RAW recorder. It doesn't use proprietary media and the accessories are reasonably price. All for less than $5000.
 
Oh wait, hold on, I get the lack of enthusiasm: it doesn't shoot over ISO 9000, hasn't got triple-pixel laser auto focus, no 8-axis stabilization, and, it doesn't even make my bed for me!
I mean, shit, Red Raven has TWO fans, Ursa doesn't even have one. Blackmagic, Grant Petty, epic fail.

Right dude?
I get a camera with a 5" 1080 folding monitor, 4.6k sensor able to capture 15 stops of light, slo-mo, and an internal 10-bit or RAW recorder. It doesn't use proprietary media and the accessories are reasonably price. All for less than $5000.
 
Oh wait, hold on, I get the lack of enthusiasm: it doesn't shoot over ISO 9000, hasn't got triple-pixel laser auto focus, no 8-axis stabilization, and, it doesn't even make my bed for me!
I mean, shit, Red Raven has TWO fans, Ursa doesn't even have one. Blackmagic, Grant Petty, epic fail.

Really? You think Windows 10 Mobile and the 950 are a bright spot?
Microsoft has flushed it's mobile OS 3 times in the last 7 years. Twice, Microsoft attacked its own early adopter user and developer base: killing off WP7 (fucking over users) and WP8 (fucking over developers). Both Android and iOS have supported wireless displays and keyboards, with Android also supporting mice.
So now they're shipping Windows 10 Mobile. Have you seen how buggy it runs? Have you seen how gutted the core apps are? What the hell has happened since WP7? I don't mind running beta software but even I reverted to WP8 on my 640. I honestly cannot fathom who in Microsoft thinks that W10 Mobile is ready to ship.
What's the point of Continuum? What's the use case for someone having to connect their phone to a display, bringing with them a keyboard and mouse? If you need to be productive on the road, you use a laptop. Need to display something on a TV? Like I wrote earlier, iOS and Android support wireless display. Being able to transition an app from device to device sounds useful, but what app do I need to do that? Most of the apps I use sync to my other devices already (tabs from the browser, netflix for videos, google play for my music.)
iOS Continuity is a far more useful feature. You sit down next to your computer or laptop and receive all your notifications on the bigger display. No dialogue screens, no physical connections. Just a seamless transition: your computer has phone features.
And with regards to the 950. This is what Microsoft did to Nokia? Less impressive camera (since the PureView 808), regressive design (since the Lumia 700), complete lack of colors, and, and asking price of $600 USD for specs you can currently get for $300 or less (far less if you look at the Asus ZenPhone 2 and LG G3).
 
7 years later: dwindling user base, zero support by other manufacturers and an OS that is almost up to feature parity with iOS and Android.
 
And this rant is from someone who loved the Metro design language. Someone who bought a new Lumia  nearly every year because the phones were genuinely awesome, with competitive features and an OS that was on the cusp of becoming great. Someone who acted like a fucking marketer every time he was asked "oh, what phone is that?"

Really? You think Windows 10 Mobile and the 950 are a bright spot?
Microsoft has flushed it's mobile OS 3 times in the last 7 years. Twice, Microsoft attacked its own early adopter user and developer base: killing off WP7 (fucking over users) and WP8 (fucking over developers). Both Android and iOS have supported wireless displays and keyboards, with Android also supporting mice.
So now they're shipping Windows 10 Mobile. Have you seen how buggy it runs? Have you seen how gutted the core apps are? What the hell has happened since WP7? I don't mind running beta software but even I reverted to WP8 on my 640. I honestly cannot fathom who in Microsoft thinks that W10 Mobile is ready to ship.
What's the point of Continuum? What's the use case for someone having to connect their phone to a display, bringing with them a keyboard and mouse? If you need to be productive on the road, you use a laptop. Need to display something on a TV? Like I wrote earlier, iOS and Android support wireless display. Being able to transition an app from device to device sounds useful, but what app do I need to do that? Most of the apps I use sync to my other devices already (tabs from the browser, netflix for videos, google play for my music.)
iOS Continuity is a far more useful feature. You sit down next to your computer or laptop and receive all your notifications on the bigger display. No dialogue screens, no physical connections. Just a seamless transition: your computer has phone features.
And with regards to the 950. This is what Microsoft did to Nokia? Less impressive camera (since the PureView 808), regressive design (since the Lumia 700), complete lack of colors, and, and asking price of $600 USD for specs you can currently get for $300 or less (far less if you look at the Asus ZenPhone 2 and LG G3).
 
7 years later: dwindling user base, zero support by other manufacturers and an OS that is almost up to feature parity with iOS and Android.
 
And this rant is from someone who loved the Metro design language. Someone who bought a new Lumia  nearly every year because the phones were genuinely awesome, with competitive features and an OS that was on the cusp of becoming great. Someone who acted like a fucking marketer every time he was asked "oh, what phone is that?"

It would be interesting to see a signal processing diagram that clearly articulated the exact changes made to the image at the point where it is internally recorded.  And, conversely, what signal processing is possibly bypassed for the HDMI output path.
For example, speaking only of the A7Si/ii, I believe that the video levels recorded internally vs. the HDMI output are legal vs. full range, respectively.  And, as Andrew pointed out above, the noise profiles are also significantly different -- and I, too, have trouble attributing them to compression averaging.
I suspect there are other tweaks going on.  But, but I agree that the basic color science is probably upstream of all of those tweaks.

I'm talking about color science in general, not the A7S II specifically. 

My work is mainly creative features, docs, shorts, and music videos, where I have don't have lightning-fast deadlines to meet. In those conditions, I've gotten much nicer results from beefier color spaces like Blackmagic's than Canon's very saccharine, Crayola look. Even with weddings, you generally have a couple months to deliver, and between Filmconvert, Speedlooks, and Magic Bullet, finding a decent look is within anyone's reach. If not, I doubt the camera is the problem. 

The color is not a physical property of any object, it is only subjective to our mind. What we are used to. There is zero science to your claims that Canon has "better" colors, there is no "better" color. A certain color you might find pleasing, is disgusting to others. Just as stated here:
On the other there are also articles saying the opposite, like this one : http://web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/ColorRealism.html, but as they say it works only to a certain degree. 
However it is important to note the difficulty of creating a nice look with the sony's S Log compared to baked colors of Canon straight out of camera. 
Personally, I don't care if canon has almighty color, if those grandpas cannot give me simple stuff like focus peeking or articulated screen (what is the almighty color shot to me if it is not in focus and my back is crying in pain) to more sophisticated stuff such as slow mo, better DR, better sensor etc. etc. etc. If only we could combine best of both worlds
 

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.

I love this type of post, and the Internet / camera forums in general.  We go from arguing over how great a camera is going to be, to unboxing videos and camera lust / jealousy, to the inevitable honeymoon is over phase so quickly.
So in lieu of shooting something reliable and proven, we put loupes on our Sony bodies, worry about overheating, worry if the Metabones adapter is going to not work, drag around ND filters and step up rings, external mics, remember to overexpose 2 stops in log mode so we can squeeze 1/5 of a stop of extra dynamic range just to spend hours later grading footage of our....cats.  All while trying to avoid banding skies, black hole suns (Soundgarden anyone?) and instead of actually ENJOYING shooting a nice crisp 1080p signal (like my FS700) and worrying more about content - before we hit record we're trying to remember what our "knee" setting was for test shot #1047.
Hey, I'm one of you too.  Having gotten a proper ND filter / good built-in audio / slow motion FS700 the past few days I've just been shooting everything.  Mostly not even slowmo stuff - and (oh the horror) not $5000 adapted Cooke glass - I even tried the 18-55 Sony kit lens - which smoothly autofocuses and face tracks my subjects.  I locked the iris, set the ISO gain limit and just hit record.  Looking now for cool low angled shots, framing, keeping my subjects (my family) the focus and not the settings.  More "keeper" footage in 3 days non stop shooting than 4 months with the 1dc.
But, I am one of you - always on the quest for the best.  But at some point we are going to have to remember there is *no* perfect camera, nor will there ever be.
DSLR's will probably never have true built-in ND, XLR inputs (save the GH4 and the clunky poorly-powered YAGH), smooth AF in video mode and colors right out of the camera (and dynamic range) that we all like.
Camcorders will never be small, take exception stills, nor have the stealth factor.  I walked around Halloween with the FS and at least 3 people asked me if I was with the news.  At the baseball games with the 1d + 300 2.8 they asked if I was with Sports Illustrated.
 
Sigh.  /ramble off.
 

This video is a pure goldmine of information regarding the proper use of Sony cameras and their features, but most of this can also apply to any other camera brand. I bow to the man for this kind of simple but thorough explanation of all the features, codecs, gamma curves, gamuts etc., when and how to use them, why not to use some of them in some scenarios...
I highly recommend watching this whole video, because even if some of you guys are already familiar with most of this stuff, I'm almost certain that you will get some new useful info.

Smart!
This is the camera I plan to upgrade to sometime next year. I feel like when the Ursa finally starts to ship, the resale value of the FS700 will take a serious hit.
Slowly getting prepared for the change. I got paid in USD a few weeks ago and plunked it down on a mix-and-match set of Rokinon/Samyang/Bower T1.5 primes in EF. Originally I was thinking going for the Xeens and pairing it with the Ursa 4.5k in PL but the Sony has way too many more positives.
 
4K RAW out of this camera at 60 fps or burst 120 fps is really awesome. This guy shared some DNG samples using the Q7 recorder.

Went to see a soccer match and tested out the 1080p slow mo in the a7sII. All 100p. Really annoying that you can't pick 120p when in PAL mode. You can't even switch to NTSC mode on the fly. If you do, the camera erases your card! The whole idea of using the concept of PAL/NTSC is really stupid. Just let me pick the framerate I want
In general, this is a great camera, slightly let down på crap menus, crappy button layout, crappy record button, stupid inability to use the shutter release for movie recording, etc. It's great engineering with a pretty rubbish UI. Really a shame that Sony doesn't seem capable of making a good, simple, quick user interface. Instead its over complicated, convoluted, slow, with loads of wading through illogically organised menus. Come on Sony, fix the UI!
 
 
 
 

I'm interested in FS5 for those reason, but the FS700 offers a lot more than what you listed.
The FS700/7Q does 120 burst at 4k and continuous 4k/60p straight to Pro Res… This is huge for a lot of applications. The FS5 still needs the 7Q to get the 4k Pro Res files, and even then it can only go up to 30p. The 7Q is huge, but is also a great client monitor. That being said, I probably wouldn't use the FS700 without the recorder. 
I have been using the recorder as a counter weight and it works pretty well. I shot a spot with this setup two weeks ago, i'll post it up when it drops if anyone is interested. I was quickly switching from 30p/60p/120p through out the whole day. The slow motion on the camera is lovely. 
Honestly, the size is a bit much, but it impresses clients if that's the situation you're in. The setup is also incredibly reliable. 
 
 

Canon is selling tons of overpriced glass and outdated sensors, every single manufacturer would love to be in canons shoes. They even have thousand of users on internet forums that are convinced that a magenta cast coming from channel scaling is something positive.
A professional canon setup costs the same or more than a professional medium format setup, and it only performs better in sports, for the rest the performance is an order of magnitude worse, but still canon is a lot more successful.

It's basically like this
 

Sorry, but the Box has poor color science.