jax_rox

A) It's unlikely as hell
B) Sony already made a 'mini-Alexa' with the F3.
Sony tried and failed with proprietary media in consumer/prosumer cameras. A number of times. There's a reason there's no more cameras on the market that only take MemoryStick cards anymore. 
I mean, who knows really with the Sony con/pro-sumer digital camera division - they're renegades. I just can't see them taking the gamble on this one.. 
And if, for some reason, they decided to - you'd be looking at a ~$4-5k body, plus the extravagant cost of the XQD media. At which point, why not buy an FS5?

A rear-mounted EVF is, honestly, useless. You can't judge the ergonomics without trying it out, and I think it's far superior ergonomically to the FS5 and at leas on-par with a C100/200. Dual Pixel AF it doesn't have, sure, but for me personally auto-focus isn't even a factor I really consider when buying a camera like this...
To suggest that is also to suggest that the FS5 and Blackmagic URSA also remind you of a video camcorder rather than a 'cinema' camera. What even is a 'cinema' camera at this price point...? To me, a cinema camera is an Alexa or maybe an F55 (F65 without the ridiculous recorder back). The C100, C200, C300, C500 & C700 do not resemble that in any way. If you make the suggestion that a C200 and a RED Raven and an FS7 and a Blackmagic URSA mini and an Alexa are all 'cinema' cameras, then you can't also say the EVA1 isn't - every single camera I mentioned has entirely different ergonomics and sizes and weights and body shapes and designs. Yet the EVA1 isn't a cinema camera because....? Have you even seen one in person...?
 
Why would you crowd the market with incremental cameras...? What sense does that make..? How do you further differentiate each price point..? 
Secondly, the GH5 consumer division is entirely separate to the Pro division of the EVA1 and above. The EVA1 is actually currently Panasonic's cheapest 'cinema' camera, whilst the GH5 is Panasonic's most expensive/flagship consumer DSLM. I do think the EVA1 is a touch too expensive. 
Yet you seem to think that your Western European mindset is more similar to middle eastern, Indian or Philippines.... And you also seem to think that your analysis of developing markets is better than companies that throw literally millions of dollars at research.
They're different markets. They're not looking for $6k middle of the range cameras. Not right now anyway. You mention all the manufacturers developing specific models for these markets. And yet major companies aren't developing $6k middle of the range cameras for them. You think it's because they're just dumb? That they just never thought of the developing markets? That no-one's ever said 'hey, you think we should put our products into the Philippines or India?' 
Or do you think that maybe these companies have spent millions on research, and have people on the ground in the markets and they tend to see what actually works and what doesnt..?
No. That's not how markets and business works.

You'd be silly if you thought that the EVA1 isn't an upgrade over an RX10ii.
For my money, it's the best looking image <$10k. 

I love this type of post, and the Internet / camera forums in general.  We go from arguing over how great a camera is going to be, to unboxing videos and camera lust / jealousy, to the inevitable honeymoon is over phase so quickly.
So in lieu of shooting something reliable and proven, we put loupes on our Sony bodies, worry about overheating, worry if the Metabones adapter is going to not work, drag around ND filters and step up rings, external mics, remember to overexpose 2 stops in log mode so we can squeeze 1/5 of a stop of extra dynamic range just to spend hours later grading footage of our....cats.  All while trying to avoid banding skies, black hole suns (Soundgarden anyone?) and instead of actually ENJOYING shooting a nice crisp 1080p signal (like my FS700) and worrying more about content - before we hit record we're trying to remember what our "knee" setting was for test shot #1047.
Hey, I'm one of you too.  Having gotten a proper ND filter / good built-in audio / slow motion FS700 the past few days I've just been shooting everything.  Mostly not even slowmo stuff - and (oh the horror) not $5000 adapted Cooke glass - I even tried the 18-55 Sony kit lens - which smoothly autofocuses and face tracks my subjects.  I locked the iris, set the ISO gain limit and just hit record.  Looking now for cool low angled shots, framing, keeping my subjects (my family) the focus and not the settings.  More "keeper" footage in 3 days non stop shooting than 4 months with the 1dc.
But, I am one of you - always on the quest for the best.  But at some point we are going to have to remember there is *no* perfect camera, nor will there ever be.
DSLR's will probably never have true built-in ND, XLR inputs (save the GH4 and the clunky poorly-powered YAGH), smooth AF in video mode and colors right out of the camera (and dynamic range) that we all like.
Camcorders will never be small, take exception stills, nor have the stealth factor.  I walked around Halloween with the FS and at least 3 people asked me if I was with the news.  At the baseball games with the 1d + 300 2.8 they asked if I was with Sports Illustrated.
 
Sigh.  /ramble off.
 

Works great in FCPX. FCPX is actually fantastic to work with on the new Macs. I tend to edit XAVC on it as it seems to handle it the best of any program I've tried. I also use it for quick edits that I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on.
I'm yet to really try out Resolve as an editor, but FCPX is more attuned fir the new Macs than Resolve anyway

EVA1 will allow external raw with a future firmware update. The low light sensitivity beats Blackmagic and the GH5 hands-down. And probably will match or better the C200 for low light.
As for everything else, paper specs mean little. The Alexa doesn't even have a 4K sensor and shoots ProRes for the most part. On paper, RED should beat it in every quantifiable spec. But it doesn't.

Keep in mind that shooting HD with a 1.5x anamorphic adapter will require you to shave a little off the edges to get to appropriate resolution, which then means you'd have to upscale a little to get to proper HD 2.39:1 resolution. A 1.33x anamorphic lens wouldn't require an upscale. 
Seems pretty average to me. Still a good 1/3rd - 1/2 smaller than an Alexa or Amira with medium sized zoom. 
Dont know what you plan to shoot, but the F3 will be easier to balance on the shoulder.

Primes are fine if you have time to set-up and swap lenses. Great for scripted stuff. Fast-paced work, or work where you only get one go (i.e. documentary etc.) does not lend itself to primes particularly well.
There's no reason you can't get something looking just as good shot on a zoom vs a prime. 

I shot on my A7s extensively for three years before upgrading to the II and I can't say that I was ever lamenting the lack of IBIS. Certainly, if it was a choice over IBIS or low light, I'd go wit low light personally (at least in the case of A7sII) despite the fact I agree with: 
It's a rare situation that I shoot over 3200ISO. Too much obsession with paper specs these days. 
That said, the sensor size of the A7sII is what secures it for me. And the benefit of its low light abilities is that you can shoot at 800, 1600, 3200 ISO very cleanly, not something you can do much on other DSLRs. That's a much more useful feature than being able to shoot a mess of noise at 409,500 ISO.

You'd be silly if you thought that the EVA1 isn't an upgrade over an RX10ii.
For my money, it's the best looking image <$10k. 

Yes, the BMD VA can do 1080 ProRes HQ 60fps. It is right there on the spec sheet.
So? Even if the Arri Alexa Mini is a couple of odd millimeters or so bigger (and I'd have some health skepticism as to if that is even true, recommend double checking it) , *so what*?? 
Doesn't matter. 

I'd be very worried you're wasting money in places if you're basing your hiring decisions on factors such as "having a bigger sensor than the F3/C300".

As for PL mount, why? Do you own PL lenses?

I sure hope not. When did lenses start to get self-zooming? Focus breathing might be a thing, but that's the same with primes that don't change focal length at all and has got little to do with a lens being parfocal or not. Or you might have switched 'focus' and 'zoom' around, in that case, well, yeah, obviously.

F3 is great, and I don't love the C300 but it's very serviceable. You'll likely be happy with either.
I'm considering selling my F3 because I just don't use it all that much. I find the jobs that are big enough warrant Alexa's and the smaller jobs are perfectly serviceable by ny A7sII which isn't quite as nice as the F3 but has 4K, is light, small and nimble and for the kinds of jobs I'd do with it, the picture is more than good enough.
There's three drawbacks I find using the F3 in 2017:
-being forced to use a recorder to make the image quality worth the investment can be frustrating at times. Needing to rig it out every time gets annoying if you're on a job by yourself. It's also kinda big and unwieldy, though it sits okay on your shoulder 
-the menu system is one of Sony's worst ever. This in itself makes me reluctant to pull out the F3 sometimes
-you can't record any higher than HD resolution. For me, this will likely be a big thing that kills it as an option for many jobs going forward. 
If you don't mind those things, you can get a really great picture out of it. Go for it, you'll be happy. I'm always happy with what I get out of it, I just find I use it less and less these days.

I rarely encounter banding on my A7s and A7sII. What were you shooting? How were you grading? I'd be interested to see examples of banding given I've not experienced it, yet you seem to find it so bad to the point of unusable...
As you've sort-of covered... it isn't overexposure necessarily. Knowing the curve and where it places its values is extremely important when shooting log. Moreso when shooting 8-bit log. Blanket over-exposure won't necessarily give you better results. As for Arri, I regularly rate them at 400. 800 may give you the greatest spread of dynamic range, and results are generally acceptable. I find rating at 400 better. Knowing the curve and placing your exposure properly will give you even better results.
Have fun with constantly shifting depth of field and days (and therefore money) in the colour suite trying to get everything to match....
 

Primes are fine if you have time to set-up and swap lenses. Great for scripted stuff. Fast-paced work, or work where you only get one go (i.e. documentary etc.) does not lend itself to primes particularly well.
There's no reason you can't get something looking just as good shot on a zoom vs a prime. 

I rarely encounter banding on my A7s and A7sII. What were you shooting? How were you grading? I'd be interested to see examples of banding given I've not experienced it, yet you seem to find it so bad to the point of unusable...
As you've sort-of covered... it isn't overexposure necessarily. Knowing the curve and where it places its values is extremely important when shooting log. Moreso when shooting 8-bit log. Blanket over-exposure won't necessarily give you better results. As for Arri, I regularly rate them at 400. 800 may give you the greatest spread of dynamic range, and results are generally acceptable. I find rating at 400 better. Knowing the curve and placing your exposure properly will give you even better results.
Have fun with constantly shifting depth of field and days (and therefore money) in the colour suite trying to get everything to match....
 

I shot on my A7s extensively for three years before upgrading to the II and I can't say that I was ever lamenting the lack of IBIS. Certainly, if it was a choice over IBIS or low light, I'd go wit low light personally (at least in the case of A7sII) despite the fact I agree with: 
It's a rare situation that I shoot over 3200ISO. Too much obsession with paper specs these days. 
That said, the sensor size of the A7sII is what secures it for me. And the benefit of its low light abilities is that you can shoot at 800, 1600, 3200 ISO very cleanly, not something you can do much on other DSLRs. That's a much more useful feature than being able to shoot a mess of noise at 409,500 ISO.

I shot on my A7s extensively for three years before upgrading to the II and I can't say that I was ever lamenting the lack of IBIS. Certainly, if it was a choice over IBIS or low light, I'd go wit low light personally (at least in the case of A7sII) despite the fact I agree with: 
It's a rare situation that I shoot over 3200ISO. Too much obsession with paper specs these days. 
That said, the sensor size of the A7sII is what secures it for me. And the benefit of its low light abilities is that you can shoot at 800, 1600, 3200 ISO very cleanly, not something you can do much on other DSLRs. That's a much more useful feature than being able to shoot a mess of noise at 409,500 ISO.

Magnetic timeline and arbitrary tracks are just an entirely different way of working. Getting used to FCPX's idea of what a 'storyline' is. 
Given how powerful FCPX is and its ability to do tasks in the background, I find it's very quick to get an assembly together. The iMovie style scrubbing of source clips makes it very easy to quickly look at what you have and grab what you need. 
Being able to work with your footage while it's still transcoding, or exporting a master file whilst you move onto another edit, or start your cutdown options is incredibly efficient.
I find fine-cutting and doing fine adjustments after your assembly more difficult. That said, the newest version does a lot to help this. You just need to get your head around the way the timeline works.
The magnetic timeline quirks are what make it very different to others. Having clips 'attach' to others so that if you delete one, it might delete 5 others that are attached to it. Extending a piece of audio or video and have it push everything else back instead of sliding underneath. 
But they sound worse than they are - at least once you're used to it (the first few times it happens you'll curse a bit). I actually think FCPX is a great option for long form documentary, better than Premiere in some/many respects. 
But do a smaller project on it first to get your head around it.

Transcoding XAVC-S to ProRes is entirely different to originating in ProRes.
Yes, better chroma sub-sampling and a far superior codec are nothing to sneeze at. ProRes is one of the best codecs out there. That said, banding is a direct result of limited bit-depth. Compression artefacts will clear up, and by virtue of recording in a 10-bit 'space' (even though the signal is limited to 8-bit), you may find banding clears up to some extent, but banding in and of itself is a result of bit depth not compression.
I've never encountered this before. How strange. Good to know!

Use a waveform monitor. Or false colour can be used in a pinch if you have it set right. I know you'll need an external monitor for those. If you don't have them, you'll need to test.
Without knowing what you mean by your exposure being 'spot on', it's very difficult to advise. 

But then it wouldn't be SLog. CLog was designed for the C300 - a camera that recorded compressed footage at 8-bit.
Slog wasn't. The implementation of Slog seems to have been to bring their product line-up into, well, line, with each other, so that whatever combo of cameras you shoot on, you should be able to pull something together that will cut and grade quite similarly.
If anything, Sony should have included other PPs that were a bit more user-friendly, a bit more C-logish. Less drastic a curve than Slog... Oh wait, they did include that, as well as the ability to custom dial in whatever combination of settings you want.
The problem isn't Sony, the problem is misinformation and lack of education. People tended to equate 5D's Cinestyle with log (which it wasn't) and I guess assumed that Sony's log would be similar (which it isn't).
I think the biggest problem is people not really understanding what log is, and not really knowing why you should/shouldn't use it. The A7s(II) isn't an Alexa, RED, F55, or even a C300. It's recording in 8-bit. Does that mean you can't use log? Of course not. If you need to/want to, and know how to, you can. But so many people seem to be using it 100% of the time with no thought as to how they're exposing, or to why they're using it other than 'well, because log gives you better dynamic range' and then being overall disappointed with the results.
And then they blame the camera for being 'terrible'. By all means, don't use the 8 other Picture Profiles, or dial in your own settings to get it looking how you like, just blame the camera for being wrong.
Some of my favourite A7s footage I've shot has been using PP OFF - i.e. no Cine gamma, no SLog, no S.gamut...

The F3 has Slog1, a radically different curve to both Slog2 and Slog3. I remember plenty of people struggling with SLog3 on the F55, for example, who had come from Alexas and not put the time in to learn the curve.
Exposing 'correctly' using a LUT is entirely different to learning how the curve works and placing your exposure where you want it. Which you need to do. I was disappointed with the noise and dynamic range out of Alexa's until I learned how LogC works and exposed accordingly.
CineAlta is Sony, so they have Slog2 or 3. They're not pseudo-logs. Canon's C-log started as a pseudo-log. It's morphed since then, but it's original intention was to have a 'lightweight' log that was easy to grade and get a good image out of quickly. It comes at the expense of dynamic range (though Canon cameras also use digital gain for ISO, rather than the Sony/Alexa/RED method of shifting mid-point, which also affects both dynamic range and noise). Sony's intention is a more aggressive curve that gives you the maximum dynamic range possible. It's a more aggressive curve than the Alexa's LogC.
If you expose it with knowledge of SLog and how it works and where it's best to expose the things you want exposed, it looks great. If you treat SLog3 like C-log or LogC you're going to think it sucks.
That's not really a fault on the manufacturer, and realistically there's nothing forcing you to buy or use a Sony camera if you're dead-set against it. Many continue to at all levels of production, despite how supposedly terrible they are.
 
It's a different curve to all of those. You should learn any curve you're going to be shooting on and expose for that particular curve as they're all different and they all put their exposures at different values and hold more or less information in some areas. SLog3 (and 2) are much more aggressive curves than all of those. None of those other curves put skin tones at 35 IRE.
I've honestly never had an issue with Sony's white balance, so don't know what you're talking about. 
Do you mean AWB..? 
Look, I ain't no Sony fanboy, but I've used Sony's a lot (just as I have Alexa's and Reds and Panasonics). But I spend more than 5 minutes testing how to appropriately expose cameras. Of course I have camera preferences. But I'm a DP who shoild be able to make any camera look good.
So when the best the rental house can do on our budget is an F5 or F55 or perhaps an FS7 (and/or I have to use my A7sII in some capacity), I'm going to say 'sure, I can make them look good' because I know I can. I'm not going to complain because Sony make 'such terrible cameras' (that somehow only a small subset of people seem to have trouble with...). I don't really like the images out of the C300. I'm not a fan of Canon's orange tints and ultra-warm skin tones generally. But I understand it and can work with it if necessary. I'm not going to hit up an Internet forum and talk about how bad Canon is because I don't like their camera as much.

The sensors are different, though they use the same CFA. And really, 'not nearly as good' has a slightly different meaning when talking about the F65. You're certainly right, but the F55 has been used extensively on numerous ultra high-end TV shows and feature films and I would posit that plenty here wouldn't even know.
But that's kinda the point. Canon has tweaked Clog to get more out of it, but it's essentially designed as a 'pseudo-log' for consumer use that was able to hold more dynamic range than would otherwise be possible, however still be workable in 8-bit and be easy to pull it back to 'normal'.
S-log is entirely different.
And that's the problem. You really need to learn your log curves to make things look 'right' - otherwise you shouldn't shoot log. Many people did (and still do) come from Canon and attempt to apply their basic knowledge of Canon log to Sony footage and then get upset when it doesn't work the way they want. 
S-log3 puts skin tones at about 35-40%IRE or something. Which is super low. You look at that in your live view, assume the skin tones are underexposed, crank the exposure so they look right, and then when you come to grade it can't figure out why your skin tones look so bad.
Turns out S-log doesn't put as much information into the exposure where you've ended up putting your skin tones, so of course they start to look ugly. Then you blame Sony for not being able to make a camera that looks any good.
Man, it's cheaper than an Alexa SXT. Alexa, which uses SxS cards or needs Codex cartridges and a more expensive card slot for raw, doesn't have a full frame sensor, doesn't shoot in 8k and doesn't have auto focus.
 

The F3 has Slog1, a radically different curve to both Slog2 and Slog3. I remember plenty of people struggling with SLog3 on the F55, for example, who had come from Alexas and not put the time in to learn the curve.
Exposing 'correctly' using a LUT is entirely different to learning how the curve works and placing your exposure where you want it. Which you need to do. I was disappointed with the noise and dynamic range out of Alexa's until I learned how LogC works and exposed accordingly.
CineAlta is Sony, so they have Slog2 or 3. They're not pseudo-logs. Canon's C-log started as a pseudo-log. It's morphed since then, but it's original intention was to have a 'lightweight' log that was easy to grade and get a good image out of quickly. It comes at the expense of dynamic range (though Canon cameras also use digital gain for ISO, rather than the Sony/Alexa/RED method of shifting mid-point, which also affects both dynamic range and noise). Sony's intention is a more aggressive curve that gives you the maximum dynamic range possible. It's a more aggressive curve than the Alexa's LogC.
If you expose it with knowledge of SLog and how it works and where it's best to expose the things you want exposed, it looks great. If you treat SLog3 like C-log or LogC you're going to think it sucks.
That's not really a fault on the manufacturer, and realistically there's nothing forcing you to buy or use a Sony camera if you're dead-set against it. Many continue to at all levels of production, despite how supposedly terrible they are.
 
It's a different curve to all of those. You should learn any curve you're going to be shooting on and expose for that particular curve as they're all different and they all put their exposures at different values and hold more or less information in some areas. SLog3 (and 2) are much more aggressive curves than all of those. None of those other curves put skin tones at 35 IRE.
I've honestly never had an issue with Sony's white balance, so don't know what you're talking about. 
Do you mean AWB..? 
Look, I ain't no Sony fanboy, but I've used Sony's a lot (just as I have Alexa's and Reds and Panasonics). But I spend more than 5 minutes testing how to appropriately expose cameras. Of course I have camera preferences. But I'm a DP who shoild be able to make any camera look good.
So when the best the rental house can do on our budget is an F5 or F55 or perhaps an FS7 (and/or I have to use my A7sII in some capacity), I'm going to say 'sure, I can make them look good' because I know I can. I'm not going to complain because Sony make 'such terrible cameras' (that somehow only a small subset of people seem to have trouble with...). I don't really like the images out of the C300. I'm not a fan of Canon's orange tints and ultra-warm skin tones generally. But I understand it and can work with it if necessary. I'm not going to hit up an Internet forum and talk about how bad Canon is because I don't like their camera as much.