tfraser

(0% of usser including me are expecting and complaining about 10 bit h264 internal not RAW. I don't understand that obsession about size unless you want to do spy shots. I mean I can shoot RAW video with cameras that is smaller than my last dslr Nikon D750 and a flash on it. In fact I prefer and camera with an external recorder than one with all internal WOW spec that will overhead. In a any narrative, high end commercial and documentary filming where I think RAW can be warranted, those size a ridiculously small. I mean the z6 + ninja V might be barely bigger than a Canon 5d mark ii.  So what has happened those last decade, everyone has become so much older that they can't hold less than a kilogram. 

I'm going to disagree with all the sentiments in this thread and recommend something different.
Go rent an Alexa.
For practical purposes, maybe an Alexa Mini.  Talk to your local rental houses and see if there's a timeframe you can rent one and get a big discount, often rental houses are happy to give you a discount if you're renting it when the camera wouldn't be rented by anyone else so have a chat with them.
Shoot with it a lot.  Shoot as much as you can and in as many situations as you can.  Just get one lens with it then take it out and shoot.   Shoot in the various modes it has, shoot into the sun and away from it.  Shoot indoors.  Shoot high-key and shoot low key. 
Then take the camera back and grade the footage.
I suspect you won't do this.  It's expensive and a cinema camera like an Alexa is a PITA unless you have used one before.  So I'll skip to the end with what I think you'll find.  The footage won't look great.  The footage will remind you of footage from lesser cameras.  You will wonder what happened and if you're processing the footage correctly.  
I have never shot with an Alexa, but I am told by many pros that if you don't know what you're doing, Alexa footage will look just as much like a home video as from almost any other camera.
Cinematic is a word that doesn't even really have any meaning in this context.  It really just means 'of the cinema' and there's probably been enough films shot and shown in cinemas on iPhones that now an iPhone technically qualifies as being 'cinematic'.  Yes, i'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek here, but the point remains that the word doesn't have any useful meaning here.  Yes, images that are shown in the cinema typically look spectacular.  Most of this is location choice, set design, hair, costume, makeup, lighting, haze, blocking, and the many other things that go into creating the light that goes through the lens and into the camera.
That doesn't mean that the camera doesn't matter.  We all have tastes, looks we like and looks we don't, it's just that the word 'cinematic' is about as useful as the word 'lovely' - we all know it when we see it but we don't all agree on when that is.
By far the more useful is to work out what aspects of image quality you are looking for:
Do you like the look of film?  If so, which film stocks? What resolution?  Some people suggest that 1080p is the most cinematic, whereas some argue that film was much higher resolution than 4K or even 8K.  What about colour?  The Alexa has spectacular colour, so does RED.  But neither one will give you good colour easily, and neither will give you great colour - great colour requires great production design, great lighting, great camera colour science, and great colour grading.  By the way - Canon also has great colour, so does Nikon, and other brands too.  You don't hear photographers wishing their 5D or D800 had colour science like in the movies. What lenses do you like?  Sharp?  Softer?  High-contrast?  Low contrast?  What about chromatic aberation?  and what about the corners - do you like a bit of vignetting or softness or field curvature?  Bokeh shape?  dare I mention anamorphics? But there is an alternative - it doesn't require learning what you like and how to get it, it doesn't require the careful weighting of priorities, and it's a safer option.  Buy an ARRI Alexa LF and full set of Zeiss Master Primes.  That way you will know that you have the most cinematic camera money can buy, and no-one would argue based on their preferences.
You still wouldn't get the images you're after because the cinematic look requires an enormous team and hundreds of thousands of dollars (think about it - why would people pay for these things if they could get those images without all these people?) but there will be no doubt that you have the most cinematic camera that money can buy.
I'd suggest Panavision, but they're the best cameras that money can't buy.

Never say never.. EOS R can already do 10-bit 4:2:2 external 4K, something even the C200 can't currently do.
It makes total sense to now give C200 10-bit 4:2:2 internal (especially since C300 III is soon upon us) and EOS-R external raw to counter Nikon.
Besides Canon strategy with mirrorless is for them to be complimentary B-cams to DSLR/Cine lines, they aren't in direct competition.

I feel like Canon has made it clear that the C200 is a raw camera that also has other shooting options, so I wouldn't be too, too surprised (this is Canon after all) if they released a non-raw camera that does have a 4K 10-bit codec. It's definitely not a "better" codec than the C200's raw, but it is way more useful for most of my applications (and I would think most shooters in the sub $10k camera range). And yes, I guess they do have the C300II for 10-bit 4K, but it is 4 year old camera that is terribly designed. 
The only hope for Canon is if they go all out on the C300 Mark III and stop worrying about Mark II sales. The existence of the C300 Mark II at $10k is a main reason the C200 doesn't have a good middle-ground codec and that no C100 Mark III exists. 
My two main needs for a cinema camera are:
- 10-bit 4K Codec and
- Small, lightweight design (FS5-sized or smaller).

How the main 4-5 manufacturers haven't released a camera like that by 2019 is a mystery to me. 

It almost looks like Panasonic is ensuring that once the GH6 is released, professional videographers will finally be able to figure out the advantages of the M43 system over FF. 

I am trying to be silent on this thread because of the recent bad blood, but I have to say it.
Some of the above negatives are the positives that keep us closely to our NX1's so many years after its release.
Super accurate and responsive touch control, that can change almost anything with one button (Fn + multi touch functions), plus Fn button on the lens, that can adjust settings rotating the focus ring (yes, it can do that as well).
Movie Record Button (programmable), and movie mode (on stand bye) with one button (no dials whatsoever for that, of course there are programmable positions in the program dial if you'd like), and almost everything on thumb and index fingers.
Those are small things for some, for others quite substantial, and only @Andrew Reid can confirm these!