Either image quality is important, or it's not. In this case, it doesn't sound like it's that crucial (if it were, you would have stated the minimum quality needed).
Image quality is important. Our films are played to an assembled audience of up to 1000 people, and are frequently broadcast as part of a programme edit. And I do this at present from my 7D and T3i (and ENG and HDV)
I'm not going to composite. Beyond colour correction off my header qpcard reel I'm not going to grade anything.
Image quality is important.
Do I need RAW, no.
I'm just sorry I gave the impression that, as a professional cameraman, that image quality wasn't important.
If you've only shot with the 5D3 then maybe you aren't best placed to provide a helpful answer?
And in terms of ease of use?
I've done the DSLR route, love the large sensor look for certain things. Hate the handling, hate the ergonomics, hate the cobbled on audio, hate the WB procedure. Nothing about what I shoot is about 'ease of use' it's about buying something designed for the job.
You say 'if I were a pro shooter'? What are you then? Shooting to show your pals on vimeo?
I'm not being chippy, but to throw in a line like 'Either image quality is important or it's not'...
..thats divisive and going to get a response.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I made sure to tell you my experience so you could put it in perspective. I didn't mean to suggest that you would be okay with bad image quality. The choice is between 1080p AVCHD and the more high-end formats. You said you don't need RAW, so that would seem to be a big argument for C100.
What I notice here in the advice is you have two camps. The first camp assumes you want the maximum image quality. The second camp assumes you want ease of use. Maybe there is a third camp that believes there is a camera that has both the highest quality and ease of use. Take it for what it's worth but I don't see evidence that there is an under $6000 camera that has it all. And I think the comments here (from "pros" and stupid annoying know-nothing-amateurs (like me)) seem to back up that hypothesis.
Look - if you want zomg ultimate image quality you're buying something like a Sony F65, Arri Alexa or waiting for the new Red Dragon sensor. None of which can be had for anything like 6k. This also is only really relevant if you're making films which will be shown on cinema screens (or maybe big budget tv drama).
As a professional you use the correct tool for the job at hand. Based on what Paul has already said about the types and volumes of work he does, that's probably the C100. Whose image quality is actually still pretty damn good (as in way better than most cameras that people were making perfectly competent and watchable content with a couple of years ago), even if on paper it sounds unexciting.
The BMC 4k on the other hand sounds fantastically exciting, but is likely to be useful for a far less diverse series of circumstances. Compared to the C100 its ergonomics are crap. Compared to the C100's low light abilities (which are amazing) the BMC will almost certainly be crap (as it doesn't actually exist yet we cant say for sure). The lack of ND filters and professional audio (read phantom powered balanced xlr) inputs on the BMC also sucks.
Now if you're making shorts/fiction where you have control over your lighting conditions, time to set things up precisely, a separate sound crew and the post facilities and additional time (as a pro time spent grading and creating proxies is worth money as its time not spent working on other projects) to deal with the 4k raw footage there's a very strong argument for getting the BMC 4k.
On the other hand if you're shooting events or documentaries where you regularly have to deal with crappy (or at least far from ideal) in-situ lighting, record your own sound, and work handheld regularly then the BMC is a terrible camera for your needs. As is a Red Epic.
There isn't one-camera that fits all occasions (or even two cameras which cover two separate camps), and there is more to cinematography/videography than resolution, codec and colour depth.
Part of the issue here is likely that with the proliferation of decent S35mm and FF35mm sensors and cameras which use interchangeable lens systems, image quality (which is still a bit of a bleurgh term imo) has generally improved so much over the past few years that in many cases you don't gain that much more by prioritising it over everything else. Visually a C100 is a lot closer to an Alexa than an EX1 was to a Red One a few years back.