Policar

ProRes being edit friendly is key to the Alexa's success on the high end. Look at Sony and Red quickly trying to catch up.
If you bring in an assistant editor to transcode footage and it takes an extra day to transcode it all, that's $400 at least to hire an ae. Pretty quickly the difference in price between an Amira an F55 become irrelevant. With the Red this is an even slower process.

It depends what you're after. Burger King is still king if you're after a burger worse than MacDonald's but still sort of edible. I feel that the Alexa is indisputably the best general purpose A camera still, but others surpass it (some far surpass it) in specific respects that might tip one's choice in another direction.
But yeah, there are so many ways the Alexa is ahead of everything else in terms of look, workflow, reliability, and Arri Log's saturation/gamma curves that it's taken a while for anything to catch up and nothing has. That said, remarkably few of its strengths can't be faked cheaply with some ingenuity. Professional tools are largely built on reliability and ease of use, but they also require a larger crew to operate but also need to move faster because time is money. One really talented person with a (good) dSLR can do a lot more than one really talented person with an Alexa or Red IMO. But you'd need to be REALLY talented.  Remember, Mad Max was using 5D Mark IIs. The image quality wasn't great, but the images were.
The F35 is nice, but it's not even in the same league in terms of DR. Good color, though, very very sharp 1080p. The F35 and C300 have the sharpest 1080p, but due to how they interpolate by skipping Bayer. Film competes with the Alexa but not for workflow, it's even harder to use. I've worked with the Alexa regularly since it was released and nothing has yet to convince me I want to work with anything else. But I work in post, and when I shoot personal videos without much money I always choose a smaller camera.
There's this myth that not having the best camera is getting in the way. That's so wrong. The best camera–say, an IMAX camera–gets in the way the most. The worst camera, say a dSLR or a go pro, gets in the way the least, and lets you focus on content. 
So yeah, the Alexa is best still. But if you're seriously thinking of using one, you'll have the money to run tests hopefully to determine if it's best for your needs. The GH4 and C100 get shockingly close for much less money. The A7SII gets WAY better for low light, and with a good grade and an A7SII you could blow away even Alexa owners. Too bad the colors and codec need work.

It depends what you're after. Burger King is still king if you're after a burger worse than MacDonald's but still sort of edible. I feel that the Alexa is indisputably the best general purpose A camera still, but others surpass it (some far surpass it) in specific respects that might tip one's choice in another direction.
But yeah, there are so many ways the Alexa is ahead of everything else in terms of look, workflow, reliability, and Arri Log's saturation/gamma curves that it's taken a while for anything to catch up and nothing has. That said, remarkably few of its strengths can't be faked cheaply with some ingenuity. Professional tools are largely built on reliability and ease of use, but they also require a larger crew to operate but also need to move faster because time is money. One really talented person with a (good) dSLR can do a lot more than one really talented person with an Alexa or Red IMO. But you'd need to be REALLY talented.  Remember, Mad Max was using 5D Mark IIs. The image quality wasn't great, but the images were.
The F35 is nice, but it's not even in the same league in terms of DR. Good color, though, very very sharp 1080p. The F35 and C300 have the sharpest 1080p, but due to how they interpolate by skipping Bayer. Film competes with the Alexa but not for workflow, it's even harder to use. I've worked with the Alexa regularly since it was released and nothing has yet to convince me I want to work with anything else. But I work in post, and when I shoot personal videos without much money I always choose a smaller camera.
There's this myth that not having the best camera is getting in the way. That's so wrong. The best camera–say, an IMAX camera–gets in the way the most. The worst camera, say a dSLR or a go pro, gets in the way the least, and lets you focus on content. 
So yeah, the Alexa is best still. But if you're seriously thinking of using one, you'll have the money to run tests hopefully to determine if it's best for your needs. The GH4 and C100 get shockingly close for much less money. The A7SII gets WAY better for low light, and with a good grade and an A7SII you could blow away even Alexa owners. Too bad the colors and codec need work.

I've only tried the Fotga DP 500 II S. It seemed to work similarly well to high end compact units (Arri and O'Connor) for most lenses, very little backlash and and no play. But it fell apart a bit over time. For the price I think it's about as good as you'll get. I haven't tried the cheaper one. I recently switched to the DJI Wireless Focus, so haven't used anything too new.

I have a used AT4073a I'll sell cheap. Personally I prefer my 416 and don't find the AT to be less "unforgiving" but it's super good for the money, in the same league just very directional and hot (also can be a good thing). It's so hot it can help with bad preamps, too.
Look into the F8. That seems to be where it's at if you can't afford SD/Zaxcom. I wouldn't consider anything else at that price point.

Unless you're flying an Alexa Mini and need that last bit of highlight detail (like in the Revenant or something) I think you'd be foolish not to go with the X5R. The smaller platform is more stable. Lots of price/performance there, too–I expect the image to be competitive with anything up to and included the Dragon–but with less flexibility in terms of lens changes. But if you need to buy a new A camera, too, and are already getting a Ronin MX for it, then maybe it becomes less obvious a choice.
Also, the Osmo and Z axis would be amazing.

Unless you're flying an Alexa Mini and need that last bit of highlight detail (like in the Revenant or something) I think you'd be foolish not to go with the X5R. The smaller platform is more stable. Lots of price/performance there, too–I expect the image to be competitive with anything up to and included the Dragon–but with less flexibility in terms of lens changes. But if you need to buy a new A camera, too, and are already getting a Ronin MX for it, then maybe it becomes less obvious a choice.
Also, the Osmo and Z axis would be amazing.

You'd be surprised how low it is under Modified and Ultra Low Budget contracts. I've worked with a group of pretty big names making under $200/day on a feature produced by an A-lister under Modified low budget. Ultra Low Budget you can get away with deferred pay (no pay).
And how high it is for ads ($50k+/day for background including residuals on major spots).
There's also always non-union. Most non union actors will work for a couple hundred dollars a day to have something for their reel.

Glad it's a doc and not narrative. Otherwise you'd be in David Fincher territory.
That's a close fit for 4GB. Maybe 6TB would be better? Where's your scratch disk? I agree no need for 422 HQ. If you're concerned about super whites, definitely choose extended range to flatten the image and bring them back in legal range. That said, if 422 standard is 8 bit and you shot Canon Log you might be getting a bit too flat for an 8 bit finishing codec. Guessing it's not the end of the world, though.
Hope it goes well.

What are you cutting that is 120 hours of footage? How will you store all that.
ProRes cuts WAY faster than AVCHD. 
 
I use 422 (not HQ for that much footage)
rec709
full range (though FCP does broadcast range by default and both will work, but full range will look flatter and not lose super white detail in RGB conversion.
No post-processing or gamma correction (1.0 is fine).

Makes a lot of sense. The last part you wrote is totally true, figuring out how to achieve that, though, seems harder.
This sums up my feelings on your short:
http://www.shanesnow.com/blog/2014/9/6/why-its-hard-to-recognize-genius
 

It's not, but just don't take things too personally. I do, and look at what trouble it gets me in.
I'm dead serious about the best thing I ever shot being on a t2i btw. I was lucky enough to shoot an ad for NBC on an Alexa and MK-V after that (based on showing the t2i video to a client) and it wasn't nearly as good because I didn't have enough time to control. Maybe next time it will be better. But anyone who judges you on your camera has nothing better to be judged by than theirs. And a camera costs money, not talent.
I still try to recommend certain things to people based on their needs. Unfortunately, money is usually the main one for most people. I remember going to a ramen restaurant where everyone had to speak their dreams, it was a cute place with that theme–and 9/10 they were to get a full time job. Which is to say, to have someone else's approval, financially and in terms of self-worth. But these people lacked the money and approval not to need it, and that's most of us. If you can be true to yourself, and not your client or the internet, more power to you. But at the same time, that's a luxury, and so I feel the only answer is see everyone's point of view.
As storytellers, the goal we should all have is to worry about hiring the best DP instead of buying the best camera. Or being the DP who can choose any camera. People are always worth more than gear.
But we have time to get there and until then, our needs are our own.

A much larger and more boring market of low end pros, yes. Sort of like the market for the C100 and C300.

Don't be so snide, there are people who do just this all the time. It's just that most of them don't post about it because their clients are paying millions of dollars so no one knows what the footage used to look like before the grade.
My friend had some AF100 footage he cut for a promo graded by Stefan Sonnenfeld and it started rough but looked brilliant once he was done. I wouldn't be so hubristic as to assume it can't be done, just humble enough to admit you can't do. I can't do it, but I have a Canon so I'm not worried. 
I still can't fathom how people deal with hard chroma clipping, though. Apparently even CO3 gets stumped when it came to baked in hard chroma clipping, but where there's a will (and a lot of money) there's a way. Maybe they have it figured out by now. Or if they don't maybe someone else does.
But in theory, I agree. I don't have the skill to fix that kind of stuff, nor the patience. 

Don't be so snide, there are people who do just this all the time. It's just that most of them don't post about it because their clients are paying millions of dollars so no one knows what the footage used to look like before the grade.
My friend had some AF100 footage he cut for a promo graded by Stefan Sonnenfeld and it started rough but looked brilliant once he was done. I wouldn't be so hubristic as to assume it can't be done, just humble enough to admit you can't do. I can't do it, but I have a Canon so I'm not worried. 
I still can't fathom how people deal with hard chroma clipping, though. Apparently even CO3 gets stumped when it came to baked in hard chroma clipping, but where there's a will (and a lot of money) there's a way. Maybe they have it figured out by now. Or if they don't maybe someone else does.
But in theory, I agree. I don't have the skill to fix that kind of stuff, nor the patience. 

I even bet the 5D4 won't beat the A6300, but I'm not sure it needs to.
It won't have more resolution (almost certainly much less) but it also won't overheat in the middle of shooting a once-in-a-lifetime BTS interview with Tom Cruise or something. I have friends who do that kind of stuff and they've had to switch back to cameras with a worse image (despite spending more to get less) because A-listers have little patience and probably don't know what aliasing is.
And so.... this argument is fruitless. The 80D is a great low end "pro" camera because it's reliable and the image is good enough to sell (the 7D was used extensively on national ads and still occasionally used as a B camera on major tv series). For resolution enthusiasts, there are lots of other options, though. So are you an artist or a hack? Sounds like you're an artist. Not me.
I'll take hack if the day rate is higher and it's an amicable team. Even on my own recreational projects I don't want to waste time in post or on set. But kudos to people on both sides. Just because I don't have the finances or financial freedom to up my game doesn't mean I don't want to. Artists and hacks both have valid motivations, and even Spielberg money won't bridge that gap. Good luck convincing anyone to switch sides because they won't easily....
The A6300 probably has a sharper image than the Alexa 65, forget a Canon dSLR. If what you're after is technical excellence you've found it. Sure there's tons of skew, it breaks down on set, and the color is hideous unless you control it carefully–but the resolution is breathtaking and with enough patience and care in lighting you can work around the rest. But some of us are broke and need that paycheck. And worse yet we're lazy. Living wage is $80k/year in my market. Once that's paid for, I'll consider trading up. For now... if it pays, that's what counts.
So I salute the 80D guys. I even want one because it seems so easy to use I can save on crew and pay myself more. But I also think it's sort of criminal that we still put up with such a soft picture, and that Canon won't offer more. All I need is GH2 sharpness and 80D everything else and I'm sold.
Weird... really weird... that that isn't available even now. It should be.

I even bet the 5D4 won't beat the A6300, but I'm not sure it needs to.
It won't have more resolution (almost certainly much less) but it also won't overheat in the middle of shooting a once-in-a-lifetime BTS interview with Tom Cruise or something. I have friends who do that kind of stuff and they've had to switch back to cameras with a worse image (despite spending more to get less) because A-listers have little patience and probably don't know what aliasing is.
And so.... this argument is fruitless. The 80D is a great low end "pro" camera because it's reliable and the image is good enough to sell (the 7D was used extensively on national ads and still occasionally used as a B camera on major tv series). For resolution enthusiasts, there are lots of other options, though. So are you an artist or a hack? Sounds like you're an artist. Not me.
I'll take hack if the day rate is higher and it's an amicable team. Even on my own recreational projects I don't want to waste time in post or on set. But kudos to people on both sides. Just because I don't have the finances or financial freedom to up my game doesn't mean I don't want to. Artists and hacks both have valid motivations, and even Spielberg money won't bridge that gap. Good luck convincing anyone to switch sides because they won't easily....
The A6300 probably has a sharper image than the Alexa 65, forget a Canon dSLR. If what you're after is technical excellence you've found it. Sure there's tons of skew, it breaks down on set, and the color is hideous unless you control it carefully–but the resolution is breathtaking and with enough patience and care in lighting you can work around the rest. But some of us are broke and need that paycheck. And worse yet we're lazy. Living wage is $80k/year in my market. Once that's paid for, I'll consider trading up. For now... if it pays, that's what counts.
So I salute the 80D guys. I even want one because it seems so easy to use I can save on crew and pay myself more. But I also think it's sort of criminal that we still put up with such a soft picture, and that Canon won't offer more. All I need is GH2 sharpness and 80D everything else and I'm sold.
Weird... really weird... that that isn't available even now. It should be.

I still don't get why anyone is using auto white balance. I see 3200K 5600K and rarely 4300K and that's it. 
 

I even bet the 5D4 won't beat the A6300, but I'm not sure it needs to.
It won't have more resolution (almost certainly much less) but it also won't overheat in the middle of shooting a once-in-a-lifetime BTS interview with Tom Cruise or something. I have friends who do that kind of stuff and they've had to switch back to cameras with a worse image (despite spending more to get less) because A-listers have little patience and probably don't know what aliasing is.
And so.... this argument is fruitless. The 80D is a great low end "pro" camera because it's reliable and the image is good enough to sell (the 7D was used extensively on national ads and still occasionally used as a B camera on major tv series). For resolution enthusiasts, there are lots of other options, though. So are you an artist or a hack? Sounds like you're an artist. Not me.
I'll take hack if the day rate is higher and it's an amicable team. Even on my own recreational projects I don't want to waste time in post or on set. But kudos to people on both sides. Just because I don't have the finances or financial freedom to up my game doesn't mean I don't want to. Artists and hacks both have valid motivations, and even Spielberg money won't bridge that gap. Good luck convincing anyone to switch sides because they won't easily....
The A6300 probably has a sharper image than the Alexa 65, forget a Canon dSLR. If what you're after is technical excellence you've found it. Sure there's tons of skew, it breaks down on set, and the color is hideous unless you control it carefully–but the resolution is breathtaking and with enough patience and care in lighting you can work around the rest. But some of us are broke and need that paycheck. And worse yet we're lazy. Living wage is $80k/year in my market. Once that's paid for, I'll consider trading up. For now... if it pays, that's what counts.
So I salute the 80D guys. I even want one because it seems so easy to use I can save on crew and pay myself more. But I also think it's sort of criminal that we still put up with such a soft picture, and that Canon won't offer more. All I need is GH2 sharpness and 80D everything else and I'm sold.
Weird... really weird... that that isn't available even now. It should be.

I even bet the 5D4 won't beat the A6300, but I'm not sure it needs to.
It won't have more resolution (almost certainly much less) but it also won't overheat in the middle of shooting a once-in-a-lifetime BTS interview with Tom Cruise or something. I have friends who do that kind of stuff and they've had to switch back to cameras with a worse image (despite spending more to get less) because A-listers have little patience and probably don't know what aliasing is.
And so.... this argument is fruitless. The 80D is a great low end "pro" camera because it's reliable and the image is good enough to sell (the 7D was used extensively on national ads and still occasionally used as a B camera on major tv series). For resolution enthusiasts, there are lots of other options, though. So are you an artist or a hack? Sounds like you're an artist. Not me.
I'll take hack if the day rate is higher and it's an amicable team. Even on my own recreational projects I don't want to waste time in post or on set. But kudos to people on both sides. Just because I don't have the finances or financial freedom to up my game doesn't mean I don't want to. Artists and hacks both have valid motivations, and even Spielberg money won't bridge that gap. Good luck convincing anyone to switch sides because they won't easily....
The A6300 probably has a sharper image than the Alexa 65, forget a Canon dSLR. If what you're after is technical excellence you've found it. Sure there's tons of skew, it breaks down on set, and the color is hideous unless you control it carefully–but the resolution is breathtaking and with enough patience and care in lighting you can work around the rest. But some of us are broke and need that paycheck. And worse yet we're lazy. Living wage is $80k/year in my market. Once that's paid for, I'll consider trading up. For now... if it pays, that's what counts.
So I salute the 80D guys. I even want one because it seems so easy to use I can save on crew and pay myself more. But I also think it's sort of criminal that we still put up with such a soft picture, and that Canon won't offer more. All I need is GH2 sharpness and 80D everything else and I'm sold.
Weird... really weird... that that isn't available even now. It should be.

If you applied half as much passion to video as you applied to these posts you'd be the next Spielberg.

I work for myself. So I'm actually a real cheapskate.
Don't worry about Syfy channel. If that's not what you want to do, then you'll be lucky enough to never have to work with Syfy channel. Just ignore what they're doing if you don't like it and you'll be better off.
A C300 is not that expensive–$4500 used, maybe? If you save even a week of work in post from having timecode sync or raise your wet hire rate $100/day over the competition, or book more work because producers like it, you will quickly be in the black. My friends who bought C300s made a lot of money very quickly because it's a popular rental item and a lot of places wanted to hire them really quickly ($30,000/month is a normal rate for a camera op on tv even without owning a camera). I bought a C100, I'm very happy with it and paid it back within a few months and still rent it from time to time, but I can't rent it for nearly as much as if I had spent more. In the long run, the cheaper option costs more. I wouldn't advise spending money on anything unless you have disposable income and enjoy your hobby or know you can make it back in full within six months of purchase. But if you can... go for it. Ever played Monopoly? The conservative players are always the first to go bankrupt. 

I'm not sure anyone does.
My friends did have good luck with the C300 (their feature got into Cannes, won an award there, then Sundance thereafter–but more importantly, the camera worked equally well for a traditional 30-person crew as it did for a one-person splinter unit) and I think now it's a good deal if you can rent it to other friends, too, and I just like using it–but apparently they bought it more to look cool on set, who'd a thunk it, even though they were used to shooting Alexa!
But just buy whatever doesn't get in the way. If you only care about storytelling or performance just get a t2i and focus on that. That camera is great, it doesn't get in the way and the image looks good enough with the least unnecessary effort. The quest for a good story is hard, but the quest for better image quality is a sadder one because talent is free and production value is $$$$. So your holy grail quest to eek ever so much more out of that GH4 isn't worth a thing compared with a day in private equity. Whereas Hollywood is voracious for that story the millennials love and they're gonna give you five Alexas and hundreds of thousands in fees from an eight figure budget to direct it–you know, the one you shot on your iPhone. 
 

My friends had good luck with a C300 on their micro-budget feature. It was a compromise (the DP/director was used to Alexas) but they found the ease of use kept costs down and allowed them to get better practical effects. Their grade was very good, I think they spent money on that. It's nice because you can use it with no crew for pick ups and set it up very quickly and the ergonomics are great.
It's different for everyone, but I can't say enough good things about the C300 for very low budget (under $500k) productions. Past that point you should rent an Alexa. 
I wouldn't consider anything without timecode sync for a feature unless you figure something out with a comtek providing a reliable guide track. The C100 Mk II is good for weddings but I wouldn't use it for a feature unless I already owned one.
"Narrative" sort of implies a full team of camera assistants and a G&E crew, but I'm assuming you don't have one all the time. If you do, definitely Alexa or even Dragon is nice.

Everyone is going to be a bit biased toward what they own or choose to use because it took all their research and money to get to that decision (plus the additional time and expense of buying and selling and renting and demoing everything under the sun before making the right decision). But while everyone's choice is usually eventually right for their needs–it gets pretty exhausting deluding yourself and going down the wrong path–many cameramen will then embrace the strengths of their given instrument the more they use it and their bias will only extend as their needs are changed by their choices, rather than the other way around. If you've got an A7S you're gonna shoot low light; if you've got a Dragon you definitely won't.
There are a lot of talented guitarists, each using and loving completely different guitars, and to what extent choice informed aptitude and aptitude informed choice is debatable there, too. It goes both ways. Causation, correlation, and whatnot.
I think the only mistake is believing everyone shares your needs and your taste (and your finances). I like just about everything if it's done well, maybe it's a lack of cultivated taste, so it's easy for me to say "do your thing," but I also think everyone is going to do their thing anyway so being too set in your beliefs won't help unless you're making your own decisions (which you don't need a forum to make). No one else's needs are your own, so every recommendation is going to vary.
You seem like someone who is very thoughtful but also opinionated, and it's good to think before drawing a conclusion. But don't be too quick to dismiss those who form their opinions intuitively rather than intellectually. A lot of the greatest filmmakers operate that way when picking coverage, directing performance, etc.–choices far more important than codec. I think Paul McCartney never learned to read music. Bias is good, it shows intelligence. Intransigence isn't, it reveals solipsism.