tellure

I have the same issue as the OP.. especially with those personal/family projects where there is no deadline, it's super easy to keep putting it off.  Here are a few things I've found have helped me.  Also, is this the most first-world problem or what?
General life / process stuff:
Find the music first and let it guide you.  Usually you have an idea of the style of the video, and the tempo or mood you shot for, so instead of grinding through 10 days worth of clips it can be more fun to go trawling through some really cool music listening for the piece that works best.  It does help to have a few clips to put up against the music candidates, but it's usually pretty quick to find a few good shots for that.  Once you have the music (or a few top candidates) it can help clarify the tempo and pacing and sometimes certain sequences will start to take shape in your mind (e.g. an cool intro or a dramatic crescendo).  The music can then act as a good motivator for starting to work through the clips because you're thinking about how the moments you're finding can fit into the different musical sections. Temporarily suspend some other personal projects/hobbies.  All the other stuff in our lives can easily get in the way of starting a big project like this.  Sometimes you need to give yourself a bit more breathing room.  For example right now I'm taking a 2-week hiatus from guitar practice so I can get enough time to work on a personal vacation video project. Reviewing clips:
Use markers in the clips to save the good moments.  You mention reviewing clips and pulling any good moments directly on the timeline.  I used to do this too but it's much faster to scrub through a clip and just mark the good in and out (with hotkeys of course) instead of trimming it on the timeline.  It also gives you a permanent record of the good moments (saved in the marker data) instead of depending on that trimmed clip remaining on the timeline as the record of that moment.  Also doesn't clutter up your timeline until you're ready to actually edit. Scrub through clips at high speed.  Probably goes without saying, but there's no need to watch every clip from start to finish at regular speed.  Most clips only have 1 or 2 good moments and you can usually spot them while scrubbing.  Scrubbing is also better than skipping ahead as you'll see quick moments go by that could work.  When you spot a good moment, scrub back a bit and then watch just that moment at full speed.  Then mark the in and out, as above. Make sure you can scrub clips smoothly.  If your camera source files don't scrub smoothly (like my Sony A9's X-AVCS h264 files, ungh) then make some proxies to be able to scrub quickly (I use 1080p Cineform).  This will also speed up the editing process as it will remove all those little micro-delays when you re-position the play head or skip back a few seconds or do some scrubbing through the timeline.  I waited way too long before doing proxies but they are totally worth it and very low-hassle nowadays (e.g. Premiere's ingest tool, only took me a few minutes to find the encoding settings and start encoding them). Remove useless or very low-value clips from the project.  Again probably goes without saying but sometimes we review a clip there's nothing good there, but we're afraid of losing anything so we leave it there cluttering up the project.  If you know there's nothing there then just remove it from the project as it will speed up the rest of the process and with over 1100 clips you'll almost certainly have more than you need.  
 

Thanks everyone, it's great to get such a helpful mixture of technical and more philosophical tips.
As @OliKMIA says, it's the creative process, and I am definitely still working it out for myself but I have got a lot of elements down.
I shoot a lot, and @mercer and @IronFilm are right that it shouldn't get in the way of the trip, but for me the logic is actually a bit different.  I like shooting, the challenge of it, the way that it forces you to actively look, rather than just passively drift through situations.  I also use photography if I'm a bit bored too as it's fun to try and challenge yourself about how to have as much variety in your B-roll for example, which is great if you're in-transit between locations.  Also, I think I shoot a lot of clips because I want to enjoy my holiday and so in a way I'm shooting while thinking about my holiday instead of shooting trying to think about the final edit.  I'm also shooting in-case something happens in much the same way as a street photographer would find a background and then frame and pre-focus and just wait for someone to walk through the scene, but in video you need to be rolling if you want the whole shot.  It makes me far less efficient, but in a sense I'm trading off enjoyment of the holiday vs work in the edit suite.  
Also, I like to be spontaneous and let the holiday dictate what I shoot, rather than pre-visualising or planning as @mercer and @Don Kotlos mentioned and then making the holiday fit more into the shooting.  I also don't like to direct, so these trips are mostly fly-on-the-wall (or massive-camera-on-the-wall as the case may be!)  On this whole trip I might have asked someone to stand somewhere or to look at the camera only a handful of times.  The last thing a family holiday needs is a bossy photographer ordering everyone about all the time
I think I've got the technical aspects of editing that @tellure mentioned mostly in place, I use markers, scrub through longer footage, use an editing codec (720p Prores Proxy proxy files are smooth as silk on my MBP), and removing useless clips.
I got this editing process from Kraig Adams at Wedding Film School who did a BTS of his whole editing process (10 x 1hr YT videos from nothing to finished films) and what I liked about it is that you don't spend time looking at 'bad' clips again and again, but @Don Kotlos is absolutely right about it being the "brute force" method, and that's definitely what it feels like!!
The other approach that @NX1user and @Mark Romero 2 mention is that instead of starting with everything and deliberately taking out the bad stuff to only pull in the good stuff.  This makes total sense considering that only a small percentage of the footage makes the final cut.  The challenge I have with this approach is that I think I will start off finding some good footage that suggests a particular style of edit but then later on I'll find more footage that suggests a different style of edit, and now I've reviewed a bunch of shots with one style in mind but am now going in a different direction and so many decisions were made incorrectly.  I think this would work well for videos that are pretty straight-forward, or for people who can hold a lot of information in their heads and can remember what footage there was and kind of hold multiple edits in their head as they're working.  This is absolutely not me!!
Breaking it down into bits as @Anaconda_ says is a good idea, and publishing them to keep up motivation is also a good idea - thanks @User.  I'm still not sure if I'll end up with just one final video or multiples.  In terms of the final output I'm also undecided.  I've previously condensed week trips into sub-5 minute videos, but this one had a lot more locations and activities.  I've thrashed this out with a couple of friends and we came to the conclusion that the length is irrelevant as long as it stays interesting - I've seen a 25 minute home movie from a 5 week trip through Europe that stayed interesting, so it can be done for home videos, plus there's the "super vlog" format that seems to work really well too.
Getting more understanding about what my audience wants would be good.  Unfortunately it's mostly relatives and friends that are in other cities / timezones and aren't up for critiquing my film skills so that is likely to be limited.
Music is important too, but I don't think that starting with it would work for me.  I think my editing process is more 'emergent' where my review of the footage (however tedious that is) gives me a sense of what happened and the vibe, then I can get a bit of a high-level view, which obviously you can't from 1100 clips, and then I bring the music in, and then the structure comes from that, and then the clips kind of conform to the music.  It's not a straight relationship between the clips and the music.
Perhaps the most crucial part of the whole picture is motivation and creative energy.  As @tellure and @jhnkng suggest, it's limited and needs to be managed.
I know that procrastinating is a sign to manage my energy - unfortunately I feel half-way to burn out just living normal life (full-on kids, full-on job, full-on family, etc etc) and I will look back on a month gone by and be annoyed that I didn't do any real video stuff (camera tests don't count!) but the truth is that I was just tired for the whole time.  I'm trying to improve other parts of my life but it's slow going and I want to still be able to share some of these moments.

I have the same issue as the OP.. especially with those personal/family projects where there is no deadline, it's super easy to keep putting it off.  Here are a few things I've found have helped me.  Also, is this the most first-world problem or what?
General life / process stuff:
Find the music first and let it guide you.  Usually you have an idea of the style of the video, and the tempo or mood you shot for, so instead of grinding through 10 days worth of clips it can be more fun to go trawling through some really cool music listening for the piece that works best.  It does help to have a few clips to put up against the music candidates, but it's usually pretty quick to find a few good shots for that.  Once you have the music (or a few top candidates) it can help clarify the tempo and pacing and sometimes certain sequences will start to take shape in your mind (e.g. an cool intro or a dramatic crescendo).  The music can then act as a good motivator for starting to work through the clips because you're thinking about how the moments you're finding can fit into the different musical sections. Temporarily suspend some other personal projects/hobbies.  All the other stuff in our lives can easily get in the way of starting a big project like this.  Sometimes you need to give yourself a bit more breathing room.  For example right now I'm taking a 2-week hiatus from guitar practice so I can get enough time to work on a personal vacation video project. Reviewing clips:
Use markers in the clips to save the good moments.  You mention reviewing clips and pulling any good moments directly on the timeline.  I used to do this too but it's much faster to scrub through a clip and just mark the good in and out (with hotkeys of course) instead of trimming it on the timeline.  It also gives you a permanent record of the good moments (saved in the marker data) instead of depending on that trimmed clip remaining on the timeline as the record of that moment.  Also doesn't clutter up your timeline until you're ready to actually edit. Scrub through clips at high speed.  Probably goes without saying, but there's no need to watch every clip from start to finish at regular speed.  Most clips only have 1 or 2 good moments and you can usually spot them while scrubbing.  Scrubbing is also better than skipping ahead as you'll see quick moments go by that could work.  When you spot a good moment, scrub back a bit and then watch just that moment at full speed.  Then mark the in and out, as above. Make sure you can scrub clips smoothly.  If your camera source files don't scrub smoothly (like my Sony A9's X-AVCS h264 files, ungh) then make some proxies to be able to scrub quickly (I use 1080p Cineform).  This will also speed up the editing process as it will remove all those little micro-delays when you re-position the play head or skip back a few seconds or do some scrubbing through the timeline.  I waited way too long before doing proxies but they are totally worth it and very low-hassle nowadays (e.g. Premiere's ingest tool, only took me a few minutes to find the encoding settings and start encoding them). Remove useless or very low-value clips from the project.  Again probably goes without saying but sometimes we review a clip there's nothing good there, but we're afraid of losing anything so we leave it there cluttering up the project.  If you know there's nothing there then just remove it from the project as it will speed up the rest of the process and with over 1100 clips you'll almost certainly have more than you need.  
 

I have the same issue as the OP.. especially with those personal/family projects where there is no deadline, it's super easy to keep putting it off.  Here are a few things I've found have helped me.  Also, is this the most first-world problem or what?
General life / process stuff:
Find the music first and let it guide you.  Usually you have an idea of the style of the video, and the tempo or mood you shot for, so instead of grinding through 10 days worth of clips it can be more fun to go trawling through some really cool music listening for the piece that works best.  It does help to have a few clips to put up against the music candidates, but it's usually pretty quick to find a few good shots for that.  Once you have the music (or a few top candidates) it can help clarify the tempo and pacing and sometimes certain sequences will start to take shape in your mind (e.g. an cool intro or a dramatic crescendo).  The music can then act as a good motivator for starting to work through the clips because you're thinking about how the moments you're finding can fit into the different musical sections. Temporarily suspend some other personal projects/hobbies.  All the other stuff in our lives can easily get in the way of starting a big project like this.  Sometimes you need to give yourself a bit more breathing room.  For example right now I'm taking a 2-week hiatus from guitar practice so I can get enough time to work on a personal vacation video project. Reviewing clips:
Use markers in the clips to save the good moments.  You mention reviewing clips and pulling any good moments directly on the timeline.  I used to do this too but it's much faster to scrub through a clip and just mark the good in and out (with hotkeys of course) instead of trimming it on the timeline.  It also gives you a permanent record of the good moments (saved in the marker data) instead of depending on that trimmed clip remaining on the timeline as the record of that moment.  Also doesn't clutter up your timeline until you're ready to actually edit. Scrub through clips at high speed.  Probably goes without saying, but there's no need to watch every clip from start to finish at regular speed.  Most clips only have 1 or 2 good moments and you can usually spot them while scrubbing.  Scrubbing is also better than skipping ahead as you'll see quick moments go by that could work.  When you spot a good moment, scrub back a bit and then watch just that moment at full speed.  Then mark the in and out, as above. Make sure you can scrub clips smoothly.  If your camera source files don't scrub smoothly (like my Sony A9's X-AVCS h264 files, ungh) then make some proxies to be able to scrub quickly (I use 1080p Cineform).  This will also speed up the editing process as it will remove all those little micro-delays when you re-position the play head or skip back a few seconds or do some scrubbing through the timeline.  I waited way too long before doing proxies but they are totally worth it and very low-hassle nowadays (e.g. Premiere's ingest tool, only took me a few minutes to find the encoding settings and start encoding them). Remove useless or very low-value clips from the project.  Again probably goes without saying but sometimes we review a clip there's nothing good there, but we're afraid of losing anything so we leave it there cluttering up the project.  If you know there's nothing there then just remove it from the project as it will speed up the rest of the process and with over 1100 clips you'll almost certainly have more than you need.  
 

Just got back from a shoot and used the A7iii. Let me know if you have any questions!
 
 

https://indiefilmhustle.com/color-science-let-pixar-teach/
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/optical-science/a-short-history-of-camera-color.html
Smarter, more experienced people in this industry seem to disagree with your dismissal of color science as a concept. Perhaps, as a beginner, you should spend more time listening and learning, rather than espousing ideas you don't understand?
All photosites only capture luminance data. That data is assigned an R, G, or B value, depending on the filter that covers it. Those filters have to be carefully designed to let in their color and a bit of the others: if made too pure, the sensor will not be able to accurately reproduce secondary colors, like yellow and cyan; not pure enough, and colors blend together into mud from lack of separation.
These color values must be interpolated from nearby photosites, as each one only capture data for R, G, or B. How that data is cobbled together has a profound result on the resulting detail and color. Then this information feeds into a camera's color matrix, which carefully subtracts channels from each other to create clear and distinct colors. All of which are made to hit specific mathematical targets within the manufacturer's carefully designed color space. These are tuned partially for accuracy, but also to create certain effects on the viewer based on the psychological effect of various colors. 
So sure, subjectivity plays a part. That's why every manufacturer does their color slightly differently, and has their own "look." But to purport that no math or science goes into the process is misinformed and asinine. 

Highlight and shadow rollof is going to have a huge effect on motion blur. Thins that usually looks stuttering is dark objects like lamp posts against a bright background like sky. If you look closely you can see it has 180* shutter but half of it is so faint it's almost invisible. So what you end up with is a lot higher "shutter speed" than what you originally thought. So you would need to overcompensate with say 1/40 or even 1/30 to keep those parts looking smooth. But then other parts that have lower contrast ends up being too smooth, maybe.
Since old film cameras sometimes had a rotating shutter the leading and trailing "edge" would be somewhat faded and not as abrupt which I guess would lead to a smoother motion. Just like the filter thingy mentioned in the thread.

I dont see it myself. The numbers dont really add up. The digital camera market (ILC/compacts) is a US$10bn a year market of which Canon/Nikon/Sony hold 85%. If Samsung re-entered the market and we heroically optimistically assumed they gained a 10% share - it would only amount to US$1bn a year - less than 0.5% of Samsungs US$200bn+ annual sales. Compare that to the US$500bn a year smartphone industry.
However there are, I think, two 'possibilities that could bring Samsung back into the market.
First, Samsung and Nikon are almost a 'perfect' fit. Samsung key competencies are electronics and Nikon's core competency is photography - ideal when cameras are turning into electronic products. Samsung brings image sensors, image processing, lcds etc and Nikon brings lenses, brand, market share and distribution. Furthermore, Nikon is ultimately going to be seriously disadvantaged long term relying on Sony for sensors (Sony being a major and growing competitor in cameras). So a joint venture/strategic partnership between the two makes a lot of sense (assuming that Samsung is interested in the digital camera to showcase its tech.)
Second, and related to this, Samsung could quite easily acquire Nikon. Samsung is a US$300bn market cap company and Nikon is a US$6bn market cap. company. So acquiring Nikon is chicken feed to Samsung. So if Samsung wants to reenter the market, it makes a lot of sense to buy into the market rather than try to recreate their market share from scratch.
But even the Nikon/Samsung tie up in one form or another I see as pretty unlikely because Samsung really hasnt shown a lot of ambition in the image sensor market (despite some press reports to the contrary.) Take the flagship S9/S9+ as an example. It continues to use both Samsung and Sony image sensors (and people dont seem able to tell the difference.)
https://***URL removed***/news/0634864640/tech-insights-teardown-confirms-galaxy-s9-uses-samsung-and-sony-image-sensors
So if Samsung cant be bothered to showcase their image sensor tech in their flagship smartphones, I dont think they are likely to do it in digital cameras.

Damn.. there does seem to be a ton of stutter / choppyness in the motion in that video.  Hopefully someone will do a side-by-side with the A73 vs. the A7R3 or even the R2 at various fps / shutter settings and nail down what is going on here.

As much as I want 4k60p and as much as some of the competition is doing it so I'm sure Sony is feeling the pressure, I'm not super optimistic we'll actually get it, given that they can't even get 30p without cropping on the A7III.  That does not bode well for going all the way to 60p at 4K.  I'm guessing maybe we'll get a higher bitrate and maybe 10bit..

Goddamn what happened to this thread..

Now that Sony has such a competitive camera for video at the $2000 price point can they finally add picture profiles to the A9?  With the A73 at $2000 with that level of video quality they can't possibly expect the A9 at $4500 would be cannibalizing any sales for video-centric buyers.  Just give us the damn picture profiles already.  Of course it could be Andrew's interesting theory that it's the silent shutter flagship mode of the A9 that caused issues with picture profiles and thus was left out so as not to cause problems with that mode, not any sales/marketing/cannibalization concerns.
I bought an A9 a little while ago, which I wouldn't have normally since I don't need that level of performance but I got it at a discount (working for a division of Sony) and really wanted the touch autofocus.  Now I just want Andrew's EOSHD Pro Color for it, which worked great on my A7R2.  Still hoping Sony can find a way to make it happen, but guessing they won't because the A9 owners are such a small group and most are focused on stills and don't care about picture profiles.  I may just have to sell it and get an A7III, or wait for the S3...
Anyhow, apologies for the digression.. now back to your reguarly scheduled A7III discussion..

This was such a simple shoot, but the story really just fell into place and came together. This is a little piece on my Great Uncle that I shot several years ago on my 7D and a 24mm L Prime lens. This video changed my career...
 

On this one I'm kind of making fun of Instagram. It went crazy viral.
Otherwise, I love doing hyperlapse and drone stuff
 

I dunno cantsin. I can't get past the codec limitations. For me, all this process doesn't really add anything. If you look at the hand there are terrible compression artifacts in both images, without any differences in color.
Here is a comparison of few places with boosted saturation (top orig, bottom neat):

I see mostly different compression. Here is the difference between the two frames:

Seen "Inland Empire"?
"28 Days Later"?
"Pi"?
The thing with ambitious film directors is that they go places for their stories without strictures.
Automatically assuming that a film is "less" based on IQ is unfortunate understanding of the craft, imho. 
I'm going to go out in a limb and guess that the storytelling in Soderbergh's film might have a little more emotional heft than whatever y'all did back in the day. 

This sensor is not meant for consumer cameras. There is a large market for machine vision cameras that need the sensitivity of backlit CMOS sensors with no rolling shutter artifact at all. 
There have been many Sony CMOS sensors with global shutter. IMX249 & IMX174 are two examples that offer very good dynamic range ~75db as well. I have been using these for years now but with machine vision cameras. 
For consumers, there is no real need for an actual global shutter. A fast readout is more than enough. Even film has a rolling shutter, just a fast one ~5ms. And consumer digital cameras are already close to that. Take Sony A9 with its stacked sensor for example in stills mode, the readout time is ~6ms, and there is no perceivable artifact in most cases. The A7rIII in 1080p mode has 6ms. GH5s in C4K has about ~11ms. These are excellent numbers.  
I find anything above 20ms hard to use. For example on the other end of the spectrum, you have the jello 4K cameras such as Sony A6*** * A7s*, X-T2, NX1. 
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue!

Most cameras can be set to 1/50th shutter, a desirable aperture, and automatic ISO, which means that if the scene gets a little darker the camera compensates.  This is what machines are for.
Why haven't we got the same thing when we are at base ISO and it gets a little brighter?  Even if purely electronic variable NDs aren't up to optical standards, why isn't there a high quality variable ND in there with a little motor to wind it back and forwards?
Shutter speed and aperture are artistic controls and should be in the hands of the operator, ISO and ND filters are not creative, therefore they should be automated.
It doesn't seem like an insurmountable technical problem to me - what's the deal?
(or if it is, why don't we have dual-ISO cameras where the second ISO is something like 5?)

Since we first had S-LOG and advanced Cine picture profiles from Sony there has been a restriction that they can't be enabled in Silent Mode, which uses an electronic shutter.
This got me thinking - the A9 makes a big deal about it's electronic shutter - and low and behold has no picture profiles.
Do you think Sony left them out as they conflict with the electronic shutter somehow - maybe they were afraid sports photographers would be confused about why their max FPS just dropped from 20fps to 5fps, because they had PP1 selected.
I think that's it.
Of course, this is a stupid decision by Sony.
First basic solution I just plucked out of my ass...make the damn profiles work with an electronic shutter! How hard can it be!
Second basic answer... make the picture profiles work only when video mode is selected on the mode dial. Avoids confusion.
Third point is this - how can Sony have the BEST full frame 4K picture, even more detailed than the A6500 on their FLAGSHIP and MOST EXPENSIVE camera and NOT put S-LOG or Hybrid LOG Gamma on it?!
The A7R III and D850 full frame 4K both fall short of the resolution and almost zero-moire achieved by the A9. So they have the most capable full frame mirrorless camera on the market for shooting 4K... with the least number of picture profile options. Well done Sony!
Thing is getting down to £3k used now, so actually cheaper than the A7R III with all the same nice things, but better 4K, bigger buffer, extra dial, faster continuous shooting, better electronic shutter and yet... no S-LOG!

Ahh come on Andrew! 
I made the switch to FCPX the day it came out and haven't looked back since. Its light years faster on slower Macs compared to Premiere and once you learn the workflow, I find it so much more intuitive. Im a huge fan of this program and it's put food on my table for over eight years now and Apple hasn't charged me a penny more than that initial $299 EIGHT FREAKING YEARS AGO! 
You hit that price in 6 months on Adobe. 
I have been Adobe"less" for a while now and love using Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo. I also use Apple Motion for my graphics work. 

I made this VFX 3d heavy music video all on my base model $900 MacBook Air using Apple Motion 5 and FCPX. Would have been impossible using Adobe with their flawed CUDA crap. Adobe basically just wants everyone on PC's. 
I understand your frustrations, but it took me a solid 3-4 months to re learn how to edit. Im grateful I did. 
 
Apple FCPX is seriously lightning fast compared to Premiere. I couldn't live with that. 
 

Having the ability to toggle in and out of Super35 while maintaining 4K resolution is an awesome feature, especially now that the quality / rolling shutter difference between FF and S35 is much smaller.  And finally we can bind it to a custom button.  It's basically like having an additional 50% zoom on all your lenses, which is HUGE.  I was shooting on the FE 24-70mm 2.8 last month and having an equivalent 24-105mm 2.8 with the touch of a button was awesome.
I just hope they eventually allow us to toggle between FF/S35 WHILE recording.. it is such a bummer to have to stop the record, toggle, then resume.

No 10bit and oh my god, we're still at a 100Mbps bitrate for 24p/30p 4K?!?!  Goddamn Sony.. throw us a bone for video here.

No 10bit and oh my god, we're still at a 100Mbps bitrate for 24p/30p 4K?!?!  Goddamn Sony.. throw us a bone for video here.

The *only* viable option? I have shot hundreds of hours of documentary video on the A7RII and even *it* works very well. We also use the GH5 and do two-camera interviews with it and the A7RII. The GH5 is excellent but in the real world each has pros and cons. Interestingly both A7RII and GH5 share a feature the A7SII (and probably A7SIII) don't have: ability to shoot in a crop mode that gives 1.5x on the A7R series and 1.4x on the GH5. That is really handy because it's like a flawless tele-converter without changing lenses.
From actual hands-on field documentary work, the biggest A7RII issues are not the 8-bit 100 mbps codec or lacking 4k/60. It is things like this:
- Inability to rapidly switch between Super35 and full frame mode
- Slow boot up to fully operational status
- Intermittently laggy control input
- Cumbersome menu system with limited customization
- Poor button ergonomics and poor tactile feedback
- Poor battery life (although the battery grip on the A7RII fixes much of that)
- No 1080p/120
- Focus peaking could be better
For stills the biggest issue is incredibly slow writing rate to the SD card and almost non-existent multi-tasking during those long periods.
Most or all of these are addressed in the A7RIII. So I don't see the GH5 as "the only viable option", even though my doc team uses one.
I would much rather have Eye AF in video mode than a 10-bit codec. These are the differences between real world use vs comparing specs.
If you want to see informed, experienced commentary about the A7RIII and video, check out Max Yuryev's latest commentary. This is the difference between someone who owns and uses both GH5 and A7RII vs someone who looks at specs: 
 

Agreed. Here's why I think some perspective is needed in all this...
To get 10 bit you need to pay:
$1000 - Black Magic $2000 - Panasonic $4700 - Sony $10,000 - Canon (The C200 doesn't count - having to record raw at 800Mbps just to get a nice 10 bit codec is just unrealistic for too many people. Even still, that's $7500! Same with hacking a 5D)
And to get full frame 4K:
Sony - $2300 Nikon - $3300 Canon - $5700 BM - Nope Panasonic - Nope. Oh, and they don't even offer S35 4K unless you pay $7350. Not trying to bash any company, I just find it amazing that because one company offered 10 bit on a M43 sensor camera that it's now expected on every camera, regardless of sensor size or price.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love a 10 bit mirrorless Sony as a B Cam to my FS5, but I wish this kind of enthusiasm were directed toward demanding higher quality color filters, EVFs, audio preamps, exposure guides, etc., all of which are important for getting a shot whereas an 8-bit C100 can nail the same shot as a 10-bit GH5 4/5 times.
 
Every company is introducing firsts or offering way more in certain areas (canon is DPAF, Olympus with insane IBIS, Panasonic with 10 bit in mirrorless, Sony with Full frame mirrorless)... So I think @mercer is just saying that it's unrealistic to expect every other company to immediately follow suit and include the same features regardless of cost. At least, that's how I feel.