austinchimp

I didn't say that, and I think you're taking the comment that did a little hard. It's interesting to deconstruct whether Canon color looks good to us because it's actually accurate (no) or pleasing (definitely), or because we got accustomed to it during the years where they were the only good option. You could make a similar argument for 24p and long focal lengths on close-ups. 

Maybe it's because I started off as a critic, but personally, I put a lot of importance in understanding why I like something, not just whether I do or not. Art Adams' articles on Canon color helped sort a lot of it out, but I still find the very emotional responses to critiquing Canon color fascinating. I wonder sometimes if we'd feel the same way about Nikon's color science if they'd kicked off the HDSLR market first. I wonder sometimes how much of this is cultural. We in the west tend to prefer tanned women and warm skintones, whereas in Japan, white is beautiful. They prefer cool tones and pale faces (this was the Kodak vs. Fuji dichotomy back in the day). I wonder whether Canon's lack of accuracy in reds and greens (in C-LOG and WDR) ever bother the average Canon user, whether they don't notice, or whether they've just learned to embrace it. And sometimes, I wonder why, even though I notice the creative hue shifts and somewhat Crayola rendering, Canon color gives me this feeling like slipping into an old comfortable glove whenever I see it done well. 

There are no right or wrong answers here. At least, not yet. So it's important to come at these issues with a sense of academia, passionate as we may be about our position. Savvy? 

(For your perusal, links to those Art Adams articles: 

http://www.provideocoalition.com/color-matching-a-canon-c300-to-an-arri-alexa
http://www.provideocoalition.com/cameras_more_thoughts_on_canons_color_science_this_time_with_pictures
http://www.provideocoalition.com/canon_c300_trimming_white_balance_plus_a_look_at_daylight_vs-_tungsten_colo
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/optical-science/a-short-history-of-camera-color.html
That last one is one of my favorite camera articles. Art has forgotten more about color science than I'll ever know.)

Thought I'd write down a few thoughts about having bought a 1DC as a A7s user. Before that I started off working on SVHS, PD150s, Canon DSLRs and then a GH2, a Blackmagic Pocket and a GX7 as my personal cameras. I've worked in TV, sports and events and now do mostly corporate stuff largely as a one-man-band.
I love my A7s, I really do. And I still haven't gotten the nerve to sell it as I was planning to when I bought the 1DC second hand. The reason I was looking to move on was that I was had experienced difficulty on jobs getting the colour of skin right. I do a lot of work indoors, and in mixed lighting. I also do a lot of work outside in bright sunlight. In both conditions I had difficulties, although in natural light I also had times when the A7s just nailed it.
However the times when it didn't quite work because of artificial light, or a wonky white balance or just some strange bad voodoo just got to me in the end and I decided I wanted a camera that could give me colours that just felt right - that felt real. Hence the 1DC.
First of all, it's a bit of a shock going back to a DSLR form after the tiny, light, inconspicuous and technologically packed A7s. Even the feel of the mirror flipping up just to see a live preview is quite jarring, also not having an EVF, peaking, zebras or any other modern conveniences. On the other hand the 1DC feels like a solid professional piece of high end kit, which is a nice feeling and I like to think causes me to be a little more deliberate in my use of it and even in my framing.
The picture, despite what I've been reading lately, isn't perfect. I haven't used an external monitor with it yet so I've been exposing by eye and by judgement, and when you get it wrong and underexpose it can be noisy. Likewise if you're not shooting in C-Log then the highlights are alarmingly easy to blow compared ot the A7s cine profiles. If you're shooting in 1080p modes too it has that slightly brittle quality to the colour and to the noise that I'd forgotten with the Sony. Whatever you say about the Sony colour, the picture is silky smooth even if you push it. I've rarely had the A7s image break up on me, even if I'm correcting exposure up or down a bit. With the Canon I feel I have to be a little careful again. It's a beautiful image in 4k, but just doesn't feel as elastic and silky as the Sony in 1080p.
However that silky smooth quality was also something that bugged me in the Sony sometimes. It can have a slightly unreal plasticy feel to it, as if you're watching waxworks instead of real living people. That's where the 1DC comes in.
Shooting Log and scrading with a lut and some simple curves - or even without the LUT - I can get beautiful natural looking tones from the Canon if it's lit and exposed well. It almost looks like Red Dragon raw in some cases. The highlight retention is also beautiful.
I'm still working out how I feel about it, but the 1DC has given me a renewed appreciation for just how easy to use the Sony is. I hear a lot of people bashing it for it's ergonomics but really we're spoiled, the camera is a little marvel. I'm still not sure which camera I'd choose to take out with me on a trip or a long job yet. I've been using the Canon to get used to it and in some ways I'm amazed and impressed by it, and in others I pine for the A7s. Sometimes it's a good thing to appreciate the strengths of what you have rather than expecting more expensive kit to be better in every way.
At the moment I feel like the Sony will give you good results in about 80% of situations, and only fall down in certain situations. I feel like the 1DC will give me breathtaking results in about 40% of situations, good results in about 30 pecent of situations, and disappointing results in 30% of situations. That's not based on evidence yet, just on a feeling. I hope that changes as I get used to it more. Initially I had a sinking feeling when I saw the reviews coming in from the A7RII, and regret that I hadn't used the 1DC money to buy one  of those. But now I'm starting to appreciate the magic this camera is capable of, and looking forward to digging out it's secrets.
Conclusion of the story - yes the 1DC is a beautiful beast, but the A7s is still a very capable and loveable little thing. I just wish I could have cracked how to make it sing in more cases.
 
If anyone's interested, here'a a little test film I shot on an afternoon out. Shallow DOP shots of grass, sun through tree leaves - you know the sort of thing. Also there's a girl in it too.
 
  

Thought I'd write down a few thoughts about having bought a 1DC as a A7s user. Before that I started off working on SVHS, PD150s, Canon DSLRs and then a GH2, a Blackmagic Pocket and a GX7 as my personal cameras. I've worked in TV, sports and events and now do mostly corporate stuff largely as a one-man-band.
I love my A7s, I really do. And I still haven't gotten the nerve to sell it as I was planning to when I bought the 1DC second hand. The reason I was looking to move on was that I was had experienced difficulty on jobs getting the colour of skin right. I do a lot of work indoors, and in mixed lighting. I also do a lot of work outside in bright sunlight. In both conditions I had difficulties, although in natural light I also had times when the A7s just nailed it.
However the times when it didn't quite work because of artificial light, or a wonky white balance or just some strange bad voodoo just got to me in the end and I decided I wanted a camera that could give me colours that just felt right - that felt real. Hence the 1DC.
First of all, it's a bit of a shock going back to a DSLR form after the tiny, light, inconspicuous and technologically packed A7s. Even the feel of the mirror flipping up just to see a live preview is quite jarring, also not having an EVF, peaking, zebras or any other modern conveniences. On the other hand the 1DC feels like a solid professional piece of high end kit, which is a nice feeling and I like to think causes me to be a little more deliberate in my use of it and even in my framing.
The picture, despite what I've been reading lately, isn't perfect. I haven't used an external monitor with it yet so I've been exposing by eye and by judgement, and when you get it wrong and underexpose it can be noisy. Likewise if you're not shooting in C-Log then the highlights are alarmingly easy to blow compared ot the A7s cine profiles. If you're shooting in 1080p modes too it has that slightly brittle quality to the colour and to the noise that I'd forgotten with the Sony. Whatever you say about the Sony colour, the picture is silky smooth even if you push it. I've rarely had the A7s image break up on me, even if I'm correcting exposure up or down a bit. With the Canon I feel I have to be a little careful again. It's a beautiful image in 4k, but just doesn't feel as elastic and silky as the Sony in 1080p.
However that silky smooth quality was also something that bugged me in the Sony sometimes. It can have a slightly unreal plasticy feel to it, as if you're watching waxworks instead of real living people. That's where the 1DC comes in.
Shooting Log and scrading with a lut and some simple curves - or even without the LUT - I can get beautiful natural looking tones from the Canon if it's lit and exposed well. It almost looks like Red Dragon raw in some cases. The highlight retention is also beautiful.
I'm still working out how I feel about it, but the 1DC has given me a renewed appreciation for just how easy to use the Sony is. I hear a lot of people bashing it for it's ergonomics but really we're spoiled, the camera is a little marvel. I'm still not sure which camera I'd choose to take out with me on a trip or a long job yet. I've been using the Canon to get used to it and in some ways I'm amazed and impressed by it, and in others I pine for the A7s. Sometimes it's a good thing to appreciate the strengths of what you have rather than expecting more expensive kit to be better in every way.
At the moment I feel like the Sony will give you good results in about 80% of situations, and only fall down in certain situations. I feel like the 1DC will give me breathtaking results in about 40% of situations, good results in about 30 pecent of situations, and disappointing results in 30% of situations. That's not based on evidence yet, just on a feeling. I hope that changes as I get used to it more. Initially I had a sinking feeling when I saw the reviews coming in from the A7RII, and regret that I hadn't used the 1DC money to buy one  of those. But now I'm starting to appreciate the magic this camera is capable of, and looking forward to digging out it's secrets.
Conclusion of the story - yes the 1DC is a beautiful beast, but the A7s is still a very capable and loveable little thing. I just wish I could have cracked how to make it sing in more cases.
 
If anyone's interested, here'a a little test film I shot on an afternoon out. Shallow DOP shots of grass, sun through tree leaves - you know the sort of thing. Also there's a girl in it too.
 
  

Thanks very much for this great review Andrew. I made the biggest mistake of my life when I sold my 1DC last year and I've been regretting it ever since. I never had overheating issues with it and the color it produced was stellar right out of the gate. I'll wait a month or two to see what Canon has to offer in terms of 4K in the DSLR range and may well end up going back to the 1DC. I was hoping for an improved codec that would give the same wonderful skin tones but at less than 500 Mbps. But if that's what it takes, I'll just have to buy more CF cards. 
Ever since, I've had terrible trouble getting good skin tones out of my A7s (even with LUTs). If I had the choice now to shoot a talking head interview, I would always choose with the 1DC over the A7s just for the skin tone aspect alone, for all the reasons you mentioned. 

This is my first official test with the Sony RX100IV. I wanted to create a project that tests 3 things: 1) Slow motion quality 2) Dynamic Range 3) Slow motion with Dolly (using the ronin-m).
 
I decided to use my energized furry friend Simba as my talent. The dynamic range is incredible in 120p due to the high bitrate and I found myself having the best grades in post using this mode. Using the Dji Ronin-m made this setup extremely light and I was able to move extremely quick. I shot this video using only 120p, 240fps, and 480fps. Decided to get creative with the editing. Watch in HD and enjoy!
 

Ah well as with all lucrative markets my opinion is that the corporate world is both difficult to crack and yet if you get your foot in the door it can be surprisingly easy to become a company's agency of choice just because in big business people often like to have a safe option. Once they know you can do a decent job it'll take a lot to dislodge you.
Which brings us back to the discussion about gear. I don't think for one second that most of the people with the power to hire you know much about camera specs or the latest and greatest technology. However they do care about results. There's actually a lot of pressure on people in the corporate world to 'do things'. Whether those 'things' actually make an impact or not is often not the point. The point is to be seen in the company to be a do-er, and to have something you can put on your list of 'achievements' when bonus time comes around. Which in marketing can translate to making/commissioning a cool looking and expensive video. And yes, it often is important that it's expensive.
When a marketing team commission a video they want it to be impressive, and to look better and sexier and bigger than the previous ones. Hiring a crew with a big and sexy looking camera is part of that, but another aspect (that's debated on this forum at times) is that there is such a thing in my opinion as an expensive look, which expensive cameras tend to give you. Sure you can make the greatest and most creative work of genius ever on a GH2, but something shot on a Red Epic carries a kind of weight in it's imaging that affects people even if they don't know what it is or why it has that effect.
If you're a marketing person you're more likely than not a little obsessed with image and look and feel. So it makes sense that an expensive crew with an expensive camera producing an expensive looking 'hollywood' type image is going to seem very attractive. Just my opinion.

As someone who works in corporate marketing and also does what I can in terms of production, this is exactly right in my experience. It doesn't have to be Red cameras necessarily - could be Arri, Blackmagic, Sony, whatever -  but knowing that you're hiring someone with a track record and high level kit makes me very confident in giving them money.

There's a whole world of clients out there that don't know the first thing about cameras. On rare occasions, there will be someone involved who's played with DSLRs for video and asks tons of questions. Maybe people shooting national TV spots get into these issues, but for small corporations, startups, entrepreneurs doing web marketing, email blasts, Facebook video campaigns and internal communications/training - they pretty much want to see your reel or examples of stuff that is in line with what I'm proposing or what they envision. If an agency I work with gets the gig, I don't even show a thing - the end client trusts the agency.
That said - if I shoot with a kitted-out DSLR - matte box, follow focus, rails, monitor, loupe, a big geared prime or zoom and an audio recorder - it does look pretty cool on the tripod. Now the total costs of all that may be well under $2k, but I've had clients squeeze through a tight set in terror of bumping the camera and, literally, they've said "I bet that cost more than my house!" It doesn't hurt for a client to perceive that you're using very high-end gear. 
But you could be shooting a national TV spot for Revlon and tests showed the BMC pocket with a super-16 lens from the 70's gives the exact look, and the director wouldn't blink an eye - whereas one of my clients would be "hey, you just stuck a lens on a iPhone, right??" For the size of clients I mention above (and in a big city, you can make a good living at that level) setting up an $800 Kessler crane makes them feel like they're getting a lot of bang for their buck. Don't disregard this sort of perception from people without knowledge of the tech side, who are writing the checks.

You're talking about wedding videos here. That's meant for a very select audience and hardly a grand production you would whip out a RED for or something. I have no idea why you bring that up in this topic. How about we don't stray from the matter at hand here? Just to set straight what it is we're discussing here:
He's talking about music video production and corporate stuff (advertising). Now, someone wants a music video or ad shot... guess what? Chances are it's not their first. What ever happened to the last guys? Maybe those are too busy or something. Could be. But might well be that the client wants to up their game by selecting a production company to up it for them. And having some previous experience, they will tell the difference between a camcorder and a rigged up cinema camera, especially when the name 'RED' is involved. They probably have their own ideas in mind, with a creative marketing team. They just need someone to get their thoughts and run with it and turn it into an actual quality production. Knowing that you're good is one thing. Knowing you shoot on a RED is a dealsealer.

I have to admit I too am confused by what this article is saying. Are you making fun of the kind of people who would buy this, or aren't you?
If you are, then I do think that's unfair. Most of us started with little knowledge and some less than top level kit, just what we could afford, or indeed what we received as gifts from well meaning relatives who didn't know what the latest cool kit was.
If the article isn't making fun of those people, then I have no idea what it's trying to say.
Edit: Having said that, it is indeed a ridiculous box design.

I'd probably think most of the "internet camera nerds" don't bother using lighting, or very little. Whether this comes down to shooting style/hobby/lack of interest... Don't know.
I can be a camera nerd who surfs the net on a daily basis to feed my latest craving. But I also see cameras/footage being critised where proper, good lighting was NOT utilised. How many actually realise that a camera produces superior images with a good set of lights, or a knowledge in how to mould natural light? 
A lot of the "skin tone" footage on the net with the A7s sucks because the operator raised the ISO to 20,000 in locations with weird colours/no colours, and didn't bother to consider light at all. 
Lighting is far more important than cameras. You start to realise that your tool has much better colour, dynamic range, resolution and motion than you thought. Even if you use a flat piece of foil to reflect the light on your subject, every little helps. 
My order of importance for every shoot: 
1. Idea 
2. Subject (actor, location etc)
3. Lighting
4. Lenses
5. Camera
So onto your subject, whatever camera you use, start with lighting first. You will get much much further with your filmmaking and produce much better images this way  
My honest opinion is - those who are serious but don't consider lighting, you might as well not bother! 

​A7s produces beautiful log images which you can basically color/grade how you choose too. The first step is taking that log image and converting to REC 709, then you color to taste...... From my experience Sony A7s produces amazing colors and grades wonderfully, you just really have to spend some time with it and understand how it works. Here's a before/after picture of an unreleased Music Video (Artist: Gyptian) I worked on. Graded in RESOLVE and Tweaked in FINAL CUT
 

austinchimp, I have the a7s since a couple of months and I am still on a path to get decent skin tones while having accurate colors. Trust me, I tested all those profile guides that I found on the net.
s-log is at the moment no option to me since I want to have ISO 100 and i did not start using ND filters yet. Anyways, you might give those settings a go:
Take PP2 as a base (with default values of course) and change the following:
gamma: cine4
color mode: pro
color phase: +5
 
These settings work amazingly well for me, here is one quick example:

Another very important aspect I found out is setting the white balance manually to appropriate kelvin values. You can look them up using Google if you are not familiar with them. Interestingly, I found myself nearly always using 5600k during daylight circumstances, no matter whether it is shady or bright sun (even with snow!). Only on tungsten light or halogen, I change the white balance to about 3900k and within the above mentioned color profile, i change color phase to +2 (i use PP3 for that to change it more quickly), otherwise the image is very yellowish.
 
You could give those settings a try. I would love to hear from you if it helped a bit since I am sure that this journey is not done yet.

I've posted a thread about this topic some time ago.  Everything about the a7s is amazing to me except it's color rendition and how efficiently it deals with white balance.  I keep telling myself it's user error/experience, but the more videos I watch, I'm let to assume otherwise, and it's just made up for with decent grades to the footage to counteract any of the usual color quirks from the camera.
Take a look at these tests of the a7s against the NX1 done by Andrew, which has been claimed to have excellent colors right out of the camera: 
1) https://vimeo.com/115669917
2) https://vimeo.com/115647045
Of course, it depends on the look you're going for in your footage, but in terms of ONLY color accuracy, the NX1 is miles ahead.  Of course, the a7s is flatter and has better highlight rolloff.  But it seems to have an ugly yellow/magenta bias that pollutes other colors.  This is why it's quite difficult to get accurate skintones out of the camera, slog or cine profiles.
As someone once described before, the a7s looks like film stock.  I'd agree.  The sensor produces a beautiful image that the filmmaking community seems to love.  But personally speaking, I might not always want the film stock look.  I'd rather start with an accurate "close-to-real-life" representation of colors right out of camera, not an image that looks strange and works well with LUTs, but is difficult to get back to a natural look if needed.
So, like a cinematographer is supposed to do, its time to do extensive camera tests in various conditions and locations.  The following is a link I'm sure you've come across already; it's a popular compilation of popular camera picture profile settings for the a7s.  Test extensively, figure out what brings you closest to accurate/lush/natural colors, then compensate the rest with quick grades.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rGxsgFMLk-oATs-05iN6fzb-uGkcgvLBIgJo_2GWvB8/edit?pli=1&hc_location=ufi#gid=0
Best of luck.  I plan to buy back an a7s soon and do the same myself, hopefully.  It really is a fantastic, special camera, and it's very possible to get accurate colors.  It's just a question of consistency, considering how the auto white balance/set white balance tools and features are literally the worst I've used on any modern DSLR/mirrorless camera.

Ugly, ugly post. Here's a clean table:

For what it's worth, my students and I tested the a7s, GH4, 5D MKIII (h264, not Raw), NX1, A6000, 70D, and BMPCC for low light noise + color performance, and all three projects chose to shoot with the a7s. Two of them are low-light night shoots, but one is day. For low light, obviously the a7s wins by a long way over the others -- in noise and color. (Once you start digging into the picture profile menus, you can really carve into the color.) 5D was closest, of course. The rest were just painful in low light (when compared with a7s). We even tried a Voigtlander .95 wide open on the GH4 to see how it would compare to the a7s with a Jupiter 9 at 2.8, and it wasn't close (for noise); the a7s/jupiter won by a mile.
In daylight, they were all nice in their own ways. Dynamic range of a7s and BMPCC is nice, all things being equal, but when money is tight, I'd personally take the cheaper camera and spend the extra on lenses and kit. I think they're all capable of good color. Different looks, and different paths to get there, but I've gotten images I like out of all of them. 
In good light, NX1 and 5D probably take the least effort to get good color, but that h265 on the NX1 isn't a lot of fun right now. It is less work than 5D Raw, but still a big pain compared to other cameras, IMO. Personally, if I was going to go through the pain of converting every shot, I'd probably choose 5D ML Raw right now. I think that gives the best color of the lot, but you gotta really want it.
That said, the whole thing is so personal. What works for you -- the camera, ecosystem, and workflow that you will enjoy -- is so different from anyone else. I tried shooting the NX1 for a week and sent it back, preferring to keep my GH4 and a6000. It's a nice camera, but it didn't really speak to me. I felt like I kept having to talk myself into loving it, and then I realized that I just didn't love it.
I tried the a7s for a week, and now I'm going to sell my GH4 and a6000. I am truly loving this camera, for both stills and video. It's brought a joy back to the art and craft of image for me. Are there better cameras out there? I don't know, and I don't care any more because I'm loving what I can do with it.
So I say, if the a7s isn't bringing you that joy of shooting, sell it and find the camera that does. Regardless of specs and features: if you love shooting with a camera, you'll shoot with it and find ways to make it work. It doesn't sound like the a7s is that camera for you.

I've found the key to getting accurate skin tones on the A7s to be ALWAYS do a good manual white balance, and using the right picture profile.
Like you, I do corporate work where you can't get away with arty skin tones. When required you need a straightforward look that just looks right and doesn't draw attention to itself.
I tried S-Log and I'm still finding my way into it, but I'd recommend Kholi's picture profiles from another message board. I won't link to it here as I'm not sure if that's against the rules, but you can find it easy enough with a google search or drop me a message and I'll point you in the right direction.
This profile really gave me colour which matches almost exactly with my 5D mk2. It's from a guy called Spreeni who slightly modified one of Kholi's profiles. It's a cine2 profile which is relatively flat but perks right up with minor colour correction and is much easier than S-Log 2 to deal with. Try this out before you drop your A7s altogether. And remember to do that white balance! I recently got an Expodisc 2 and it's really helped a lot.
 
Black Level: -11
Gamma : Cine2
Black Gamma > Range: Wide , Level: +7
Knee > Mode: Manual , Auto Set > Max Point: 95 , Sensitivity: Mid, Manual Set > Point: 105%, Slope: 0
Colore Mode: Pro
Saturation: +6
Color Phase 0
Color Depth > R+3, G-3, B+1,, C-3, M-1, Y-0
Detail > Level, -5 Adjust > Mode; Manual, V/H Balance: -2, B/W Balance Type3, Limit: 0, Crispening:0, hi_light Detail: 0
 
White balance: No Grid setting needed !

I've found the key to getting accurate skin tones on the A7s to be ALWAYS do a good manual white balance, and using the right picture profile.
Like you, I do corporate work where you can't get away with arty skin tones. When required you need a straightforward look that just looks right and doesn't draw attention to itself.
I tried S-Log and I'm still finding my way into it, but I'd recommend Kholi's picture profiles from another message board. I won't link to it here as I'm not sure if that's against the rules, but you can find it easy enough with a google search or drop me a message and I'll point you in the right direction.
This profile really gave me colour which matches almost exactly with my 5D mk2. It's from a guy called Spreeni who slightly modified one of Kholi's profiles. It's a cine2 profile which is relatively flat but perks right up with minor colour correction and is much easier than S-Log 2 to deal with. Try this out before you drop your A7s altogether. And remember to do that white balance! I recently got an Expodisc 2 and it's really helped a lot.
 
Black Level: -11
Gamma : Cine2
Black Gamma > Range: Wide , Level: +7
Knee > Mode: Manual , Auto Set > Max Point: 95 , Sensitivity: Mid, Manual Set > Point: 105%, Slope: 0
Colore Mode: Pro
Saturation: +6
Color Phase 0
Color Depth > R+3, G-3, B+1,, C-3, M-1, Y-0
Detail > Level, -5 Adjust > Mode; Manual, V/H Balance: -2, B/W Balance Type3, Limit: 0, Crispening:0, hi_light Detail: 0
 
White balance: No Grid setting needed !