I really really don't see an issue with the FS7..... 14 stops in latitude, and the skin tones render quite naturally.
I think the reason that people have bad experiences with it is because they simply haven't taken the time to balance it properly.
Check out this video with the FS7 and Leica lenses:
And this group:
Nothing against the FS7, but those videos look awful. Cheesy teal/orange LUT on the first one with undersaturated color and poor highlight roll off... plastic skin in the next with inconsistent color between takes. I've seen better video from the Black Magic Pocket Camera (which is a solid little thing, but nonetheless).
Then again, if you think that looks good, the problem might be with your eye and not the camera.
You're kidding right.... the BM pocket cam was a nice try from the beginning. Nothing about it could justify using it for a proper production.
We'll just have to see. I have seen nothing better from the C300 mk I that tells me it's better than the FS7 and I doubt the Mk II will be any better as it's Canon we're talking about.
Everytime someone shoots something with a C cam they all churn out this awful misunderstood flat desat look, that every semi-pro thinks is a film look.
Watch this from start to finish
I wish I were kidding.
I agree the BMPC is a toy, but it at least appears to give something resembling a useable image, more so than their 4k camera, even. It's not for "professional" production, I agree! The FS7 has HDSDI jam sync and what seem to be useable ergonomics, which are the key features separating the prosumer and consumer cameras from professional ones, far more important than codec and 4k and slow motion. I expect the FS7's image can be graded to something acceptable, but those two videos look just awful. Some of the worst skin tone and color rendering I've seen in anything passed off as professional level corporate, but I assume it's also because they were poorly lit and had to be aggressively graded to hide it.
A friend of mine produced this video, which won an award at Cannes:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2359024/
It's on Netflix and looks really quite good. I've seen a lot of major spots and tv shows shot on the C-cameras and none seem terribly desaturated. Need for Speed seemed over-saturated, if anything. I'm sure there is undersaturated C300 footage, but I haven't noticed the same trend. I haven't been following either camera on vimeo, though, and know that most videos posted there are incompetently shot.
The second link you provided shows hope, Sony still has issues with it its matrix but there's enough information there to grade it into something usable. Clearly Sony has slightly better DR in the shadows and a better codec, though. That's a start. I'm sure with proper grading, the FS7 can provide a nice image. There's a lot of C300 footage that looks almost as bad as the first two links you posted, so it's likely operator error combined with a bad grade.
That said, as a "C300 killer" the FS7 has some work to do. That or the C300 Mark II doesn't have much to surpass it on all counts. I see the value of having a good image when underexposed two stops and Sony sensors do seem to have the lead in DR, but I'd rather have a great image under normal circumstances.
Again, just my opinion. Although I think anyone who's worked in video before would agree the first two links look pretty awful from a color perspective.