IronFilm

Well shoot fellows... if the couple of us that ordered stuff from Pixapro had waited just a few days longer we would have gotten a lot better deal! The pound is tanking right now after the Brexit vote. So it's probably a good time to buy if anyone's still on the fence. 

I got 2 GX85's for a specific project, so I can attest to the brand loyalty thing.  I've used Panasonic cameras for a long time and brand comfort makes the choice to buy-in to a new camera for this gig a bit easier.  Plus, the dang things are ridiculously cheap.
That said, I still think the 5-axis in the Oly EM5II is just a touch better than what Panasonic is offering; industry leading.  However, there's a caveat:  that's only when using non-OIS lenses.  If you have a Pany OIS lens paired with the Panasonic sensor stabilizer, it's really good. 
I'm also really loathe to turn away from the ergos of my EM5II.  I'm surprised that I connected so much to the EM5II, to be honest, but I do love how it just works.  If only Oly had better motion picture IQ...

You forgot a very very important point: Autofocus. Panasonic really lacks a good AF and if we could have a similar AF as A6300 that would be really awesome. 
Just because of this I will hesitate between 5d4 and GH5

The XC-10 305Mbit/s codec is nothing extraordinary, it's just another intra frame (ALL-I like codec), the 1Dc and 1DX mk2 have higher bit rate, although not 4:2:2 color, but the image out of them look so much better.
I can't really understand what you find appealing in XC-10? My experience with it left me with a bitter taste, the 4K image is very soft (more like 2,5K), DR is BAD, nowhere near 12 stops, the AF is slow and the combination of a small senor and fixed dark lens makes the image very uncinematic, and above all the price is unrealistic + the price of the Cfast cards is very high.
I also can't wait for the GH5.

I've just added my Magic Lantern RAW video camera test for the 50D in the "Shooting" section if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20129-ml-raw-video-50d-camera-test/

a7rII's AF is much better than the a7sII, the PADF array covers most of the sensor and it does a good job tracking subjects, face detection stays locked on for a high percentage of shots when the subjects face is visible, even at wide apertures. Lots of test videos show it effectiveness. S35 4k means you can use smaller APS-c lenses, the 16-50pz is a great small option.
Olympus or the GX85 are your only other IBIS options. 

I'd go even further and say we have evidence it is NOT the same sensor!

That says more about the average reader than the camera/s.

Remember that it is an APS-C lens, so if you want 4K you should rent the A7r mk2 instead. 
I've been impressed with AF from my A5100, so I expect the A7r mk2 will be even better. 

It won't be perfect, but is likely very "good enough" for your DIY styled project.

Another to consider is the Samsung NX1 which is meant to have godly AF, and had a firmware update which gave it in camera stabilization. You could pair it with the Samsung 30mm f2 pancake lens. 

Umm yes.

RAW being the only alternative? Yes, I think we need ProRes. 

Plus, still optimizing hardware board for production? I'd rather they finish that before they start handing out cameras. 

Discussions like this really frustrate me because they're academic and digress into specs and possibilities. Every time there's a tech advance, the first reaction of many is to say they aren't impressed, as if that puts them on a higher pedestal than the mortals who are easily pleased. 4K? It's really about DR. High DR? It's about color. Great color? For pros, it's ergonomics. Everything? Camera doesn't matter. Full equipment? It's not about gear. Etc. Heck, I've seen people ridiculing the excitement over the first Internet browser Netscape (remember that?).
Going back to the OP, if you read my first response, I mentioned Cronenweth on the video talking about the advantages of 4K that I mentioned. I didn't make that up: it's from the same video. It may not fit the narrative on this forum, but it was actually said. 4K is NOT about higher res folks, even when you deliver in HD. It's about giving you choices in post WRT stabilization, framing, camera moves, etc.
I just put a video on another thread that has video from NX500 (a very low end 4K camera) cropped to be HD. NO extra res there, just HD, but you see a tight crop and framing that would have been impossible using a HD camera without additional lenses. And I was specifically comparing it (and NX1) with an actual HD camera BMMCC, not engaging in an academic discussion. My point is that today you can buy a 4K at comparable prices and get the advantages I mentioned, which directly addresses the OP. May be BMMCC's claimed 13 stops DR and RAW do shine, but I don't see evidence of that (not that it doesn't exist). Specs matter squat if the result is garbage.

I guess it depends on the price range you had in mind, but the reason we're even discussing 4K vs HD is precisely because we get such high quality 4K for so little these days. I shoot regularly with NX1 and NX500; both produce fantastic 4K and neither cost me a pretty penny. I actually bought the NX500 for some $350 for crying out loud.

I traded in my GH4+Odyssey combo for a Blackmagic Micro and couldn't be happier. My days of wrestling with a camera to do what I want are behind me.

They've never put out products with bugs like that before, and bungling such a widely anticipated release could haunt them forever. I'm guessing they'll put out a problem-free product at any cost.

It doesn't make any sense for an A7rII to be used in this sort of capacity. In addition, the C100 has been out for longer than both the FS7 and FS5. The FS7 is gaining more and more traction every day.
Keep in mind that the NFL were shooting film up until only a few years ago. If you like what you have, and it's reliable and works for you, what incentive is there to change? Plenty of prodcos and owner/operators who bought C100/300s when they came out that see no reason to switch. That doesn't mean something like an FS5 or FS7 isn't just as good a camera. In addition, it's an effort to change from one ecosystem to another, which means unless it's vital to you staying competitive, why would you go to all the trouble to change ecosystems?
C100/300 is a great little camera. So is the FS7 and FS5. Both have their places, and serve their purposes. I hired F55s and F5s for a project I was shooting recently. I didn't want to hire C300s or C500s. Different projects, different people, different needs. Use what works for you and your project. Nothing is gained from camera or brand-bashing. Except you preclude yourself from using a potentially superior product based purely on some zealous brand loyalty.

Many VICE productions are switching to the FS7, including a lot of their shows on their new channel VICELAND. 

They got back in the game with the GH series. But that is at a different level 

You got double the sensor real estate to cover compared to full frame. It's got to be an incredibly fast readout, or the image is gonna be mush. Especially with the shallow depth-of-field.
Until recently, medium format cameras used CCDs. CMOS sensors are actually a recent development in this arena. Maybe going back to those would be a smart idea. Imagine the motion cadence!
My dream would be a 645 sensor purpose-built for video with a lower pixel count. Maybe 6K or 8K spread out over a 60mm-wide sensor area. Bigger pixels = low-light monster. And then use the space between the pixels for the circuitry required for a global shutter.

I took the Full Frame Look (vs. S35) challenge and created images that were equivalent: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ . Some folks posted 'debunking' shots with MF vs. FF but didn't use equivalent camera settings per the math (and not even the same framing).
The math and physics also apply to MF vs FF. If it's possible to match via the equivalence equations an MF camera + lens to a FF camera + lens, the images will be identical. However, part of the difference is the sensor technology and software processing, where Phase One appears to really shine. Thus comparing a Canon 1DX II or Nikon D5 to a Phase One (any recent) may still show the Phase One providing a better image. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a market for these very expensive MF cameras.

I said it in the last thread, and I'll say it again. The 'right camera for the job' depends on so many more things than just the type of job. There is a right camera for you, and there is a right camera for your project, that's for sure. But there's no definitive 'right' camera for a particular job. Again, it depends, and the more we suggest that it's cut and dry, the more people get disappointed because this camera doesn't do this or that, or doesn't work the way they like. In the end, they blame the camera system, when it's not really the camera system's fault.
To your point, an Alexa Studio can certainly be used for making a documentary or a wedding video. Is it the best choice? Well, that depends on you. Do you own an Alexa Studio? Do you have clients willing to pay to be able to access that quality of footage? If so, then maybe it is the best choice for you. If not, and you're looking for a camera for weddings, then it's going to depend on a number of different factors. I know wedding shooters who still shoot on prosumer 1/3" sensor cameras like the Z1, NX5 etc. I also know wedding shooters who shoot on A7s'. I know wedding shooters who shoot on F5s and REDs.
I know BTS shooters who shoot GH4, and I know BTS shooters who shoot Alexa.
It depends.
The 'what camera should I get' question may be annoying, but the reality is that people asking that question are better served once you know what their needs are, rather than selecting it from a chart. Big DPs when deciding what to lens a movie with, they don't just go to a chart that says 'Feature - Alexa Studio' and choose that way.
If you really want to serve these people, you'd be better off having a thread that outlines the pros and cons of each camera system, and has a preamble about how to ascertain what you need in a camera system.

The AF100 with an external recorder was the a-camera on The Raid: Redemption, an absolutely kick ass movie I don't recall a single person critiquing for its visuals.
Learn your way around it and you'll be fine.

Hey, Bought my AF100 a few mounts ago.
Just finished rigging it. And just got a used Atomos Samurai (not the blade version).
The AF100 is a tricky camera. It is easy to use, but you have to master the settings to get the best image out of it. I cannon recommend enough the AF100 book.
The package I got was AF100 + Panasonic 7-14/4 + Panasonic 14-140/4-5.6 + 2 batteries and a dead cheap SD Card (which is now stuck in the SD slot) for 1300€
The best thing about this camera is that it is ready to shoot run & gun. No need for external power, recorders or rig for handheld stuff.

They use standard m sata solid-state-drives. Atleast my pix E5H does.

what about VideoDevices PIX E series? BM and CD aren´t full recorder display options. I would like to hear a wider point of view in regard critical gear