gelaxstudio

It seems 4K is guaranteed by the trusted sources. Lack of Clog is pretty much guaranteed too, but other nice profiles will be available.
TBH I've shot c-log in anger once in the years I've had C100s and that was with external recorder, as long as there's as something like VisionColor it'll have nice options.
The biggest issue is the lack of usability software, like peaking and zebras and so on. If it doesn't have these basics, it'll be a pretty poor choice for many video situations.
Buying it because you hope Magic Lantern will hack it is not good for anyone. It tells Canon it's fine to not bother adding essential features and it leaves the purchaser with a half functioning camera and fingers crossed.
Canon apologists are becoming a bit like Apple fanboys, who throw themselves on the altar everytime they're given a kick in the nuts and tell everyone how "it's actually a good thing it has no ports and has half the power of a PC and cost me twice as much".
I can hear it now "I actually like not having peakeing, I can work hard to focus, I don't need proper video controls, this frees my creativity to think about the image". You're not fooling anyone, theoretical strawman fanboy I just invented.
Buying a camera is not the time to turn the other, already rather sore, cheek.

I'd go for the 1D C.
The only thing the 1D X II has in its favour is the AF.
The 4K/60fps produces unmanageably large files and will be extremely difficult to edit on any current CPU, besides I'd rather shoot 120fps 2K if it were slow-mo I was after. 60fps doesn't really look that dramatic and there are a ton of cameras that can do 60fps at lower resolutions for a fraction of the cost.
Moving onto the 120fps mush on the 1D X II, obviously just about any other cheaper camera shooting 120fps is a better choice for that, there's nothing special about the image in comparison to the A7S II's 120fps that I can make out so far.
Any other advantages over the 1D C apart from the AF? Nope.

Just add C-Log to the 1DX Mkii and call it a day.  As for a smaller body,  not gonna happen. They need room for heat-pipes, and that cannot fit in the smaller body. And given what you need it for,  I take it you'll want that weather sealed also.  Btw, who else is packaging these specs into a weather sealed body? Sony A7 series, FS5/7 are not weather sealed. 

I doubt if the word  “surprise” exist in their dictionary.
Up to  2016,Canon still using their 8 years old CMOS and processor for T6 DSLR.
And it doesn't surprise me at all.

It only sounds impressive until you consider what the competition did years before when nobody was looking because it didn't reach the popular conscious yet and have a Canon or Nikon badge.
The on-chip ADC converters were pioneered by Sony years ago and it has taken Canon, dragging their heels along the floor for 6 years, to implement the technology. and then only in a very small selection of high end models in 2016.
By the way, we've moved waaaay beyond on-chip A/D per row, to gluing and integrating DRAM directly to the back of the sensor as seen on the latest 1" CMOS from Sony. So Canon are only just catching up to yesterday's advancement in CMOS deign. Yesterdays.
The on-chip ADC cleans up the readout noise so you have more usable blacks. If people choose to interpret this as more dynamic range then fair play to them, that's their interpretation. I would never max out the dynamic range of any digital image, because it creates Digital Sick™
In reality for all the quoting of 14 stops by DXOmark for Sony and 12 stops for Canon, there's not as much difference as the specs imply.
However as soon as Canon start doing sensors that might get closer to 14 stops on DXOMark like Sony have been doing for almost half a decade, everyone pisses themselves. The power of the brand manifest!
As for the number of phase detect AF points, you need millions of them on the sensor because they get so little light and are so small, compared to the smattering of a few of them in the viewfinder of a DSLR. Needless to say I find the 400+ on the A6300 work better than the millions on the 80D, so go figure.
It's as if Canon have turned up to a party 5 hours late with a 2 euro bottle of fizz.
There's no denying Canon get the ergonomics right in a very solid way mostly, but as for the images... The facts are:
70D = shit video
80D and EOS M3 = slightly less shit
7DII = 2012 vintage softness
C100 = Same, but very expensive 2010 vintage Panasonic GH2 resolution (albeit better in low light)
C300 = exactly the same but even more expensive
1D X II = slightly worse than the 1D C's image quality, but $6k and will likely be superseded in under 6 months by the 5D IV, GH5, A7S III or any number of others
And this my friends is why I will not be wasting my money on any of them.
Although the AVCHD quality on the C100 is very nice given the specs, I must admit that much!

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.

I think most “better colour science” is depend on personal preferences ，which some people see unnatural as natural

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 agree. I always overcompensate (in post) magentas on my Sony cams, stills and video, Log or no Log.
I've always personally felt that Canon has nice color science, but not accurate, especially in stills. Sony sensors, especially on Nikon cameras, produce color more accurate to what my eye sees, but not as flattering or punchy. I prefer to have accurate but less sexy color, and then work it in post, but I can see how sexy color out of camera is appealing. I think that explains especially the predominance of Canon on the studio photography side (when not using medium format). I've noticed Fashion and commercial photographers in NYC prefer the 'Canon look,' despite the files being significantly less flexible. I've only once seen a Nikon in a studio environment, and Sony never. But I think it's also inertia, as pro photographers have invested in the system and glass and know how to work with it.

That C300 autofocus sure is something, pretty incredible results. Otherwise skin tones looks really nice on the Sony, slightly more magenta in the skin.

I don't think sony willing to encourage people keep using their canon lens on a7X instead of buying E-mount lens

I'm gonna say it won't have 4K
cynical I know, but once bitten...
the 5D is a still camera. The XC10 is a video camera. 
Canon have decided this separation will stay for the moment, so it won't have equal video specs.
they have a separate video offering now. The 5D chapter has closed...

Maybe not. They will probably do what makes them the most cash. If thats not 4k, why bother.

Sony has been in broadcast， television and film industry for decades，much earlier than canon，even the only 4K broadcast solution is done by sony
Did u see World Cup players had weird and unnatural skin tone on TV？
Sony may not having the best colour science，but fits the industry needs for long time already
If canon really good does color，then why canon didn't beat sony and take over the broadcast industry ，even when 4K was not yet started？
I see criticizing the color is now the only imperfection of sony cameras，but a bit overrate canon
Or does the pro world needs canon？
DSLRs has  40%  mechanical components won't be used for shooting videos,including mirror ，OVF，phase AF Unit and light  metering sensor
Why still looking for a 4K DSLR for  filmmaking only？

A7S II RAW stills, daylight:

 
While not yet up to Canon for skin tones, the A7S II provides a really nice improvement in RAW color science from the A7S.

My friend took delivery of his RX10mk2 today. I played with it for about an hour. The image quality is superb. Sony has really fixed almost all my issues with the first version. Namely the zoom speed while recording is variable based on how much you toggle the switch- and it can be quite fast if needed.  There is a full Picture Profile menu, but with only Cine1 and Cine2 from the cine-gammas. Not a big issue but I will miss Cine4.
As for people saying you can't get bokeh with this camera- you can definitely get bokeh and good focus is actually quite critical even on wider shots. I kept the lens at f2.8 the entire time, and it is softer there than say f5.6. The internal ND is helpful but you'll need additional ND 0.6 to hold wide open in direct sunlight at ISO 100, do the math out if you want to shoot Slog2 at 400/800.
These are frame grabs from resolve. I shot 1080/24p, f2.8 at ISO100/200, Cine1/Pro, added filmconvert. 
It is a solid camera and I wouldn't hesitate to take it anywhere. I can see it being a great option for Doc 1-man band shooters, it is quite manageable once you have it programmed. The intelligent-active steadishot was very impressive too. I think paired with a tight little cage to hold the xlr audio adapter and the SmallHD 502/Sidefinder you could really work quite hard with this thing.
 

You are free to call it tit for tat. I will call it technological progress.
Sony are set to own the imaging sensor market and define image quality for CMOS for years to come.
That means they will be able to dictate their own destiny and the image quality of their competitors like Canon and Nikon because these companies will soon have to buy Sony sensors just to compete.
Tit for tat is one thing...how about Canon just try competing? Do they have an answer to the A7S for low light or an A7R II for high end mirrorless photography? No!
This is not tit for tat, it is how enormous markets are won or lost in the long run.
By the way the GH4 has sold just fine. It did not just fall off a cliff the moment the A7S came out.
The LX100 is a completely different prospect on the market, not a GH4 competitor. It's a fixed lens compact for starters!
And I am confused as to how you think an NX500 replaces the NX1 just because it is newer!
You say that after years of R&D you have a few months to get units shifted before the next flavour of the month comes along (often from the same manufacturer)... that just isn't true. Consumer product cycles are often 1-2 years and they share the market with a host of competitors in that time, that's the way it has always been since the first affordable digital cameras. This is not something that has only just happened with mirrorless models.

Do you really enjoy the canon pinkness? 

Worked with red epic since 2012 a lot of times. But it didn't look like cheap canon DSLR footage...
 
The C300 mk2 footage looks great to me though. But XC10 simply isn't worth its price and easily outperformed by much cheaper cameras!

This video shows the A7s can recover a lot of overexposure details during grading ,which seems impossible on a camera using 8bit  compressed codec,the result looks amazing!
 
 

They do
 

"Who said it to be so? Let the sword resolve it! Contest! And God be the judge!" (which means we want side-by-side footage :) )

So true.
Cinelike D is a mess. Orange/Magenta color cast with ugly compressed skintones which make people look like zombies... :(
 
Would like to see something like Slog2 or BMCC Log on this otherwise nice camera. ;)

canon has join the competition by reducing the price of their products,maybe it is the only strategy so far

What I like is that the A7S still has almost 10 stops at ISO 6400 and is maybe the only camera with at least 10 stops at ISO 3200 in Dxo's data base.
It is starting to look to me that while maybe designed as a hybrid with a video focus, it is getting rave reviews for stills but less than that for video.
 
It is/will seemingly take a hit from many people because it may not do 15+ stops of DR except under very specific circumstances (maybe) but ignoring that it will still have a higher DR than any camera near its price at ISO 1600 and up.
 
For live music, I am seriously considering replacing my A7 with an A7S for stills and the video will be better as well and good enough for me (since it will mostly be covers that I can't show anyway).