User

Nah, a hobbyist would have used a slider, drone, and some sort of other unnecessary tool. 
This is well shot and very intentionally feels candid and on the fly. Any cuts would also ruin the feel they are going for. 

'Techno Marching Band', something I didn't know was missing in my life but was. ?

For the lazy (like me), to save people a link click:
 
 

Just shoot 4K RAW on the H6D-100C.  Completely silent, very wide, large sensor for a nice cinematic look, and 8MP RAW stills are fine.
 

Canon would be insane not to have a high degree of compatibility with their existing 100+ million EF lenses and their new mirrorless pro body. 

But who knows? No one can predict the future perfectly. 
 
 
Buy sound gear instead ?

Don't be afraid of adapters as even the non manufacturer ones like Metabones and Kipon can be almost native in use and they are a long way from simple dumb adapters these days.
Even decades ago, there were adapters that allow auto focus with manual focus lenses from several makers for several mounts but the latest ones are excellent.
As for silent shooting, that just gets better with each generation with the first gen cameras ( I had a GX7 and still have an A7s) it is very useful but with some limits.     The lastest Sony cameras it is better (as said A9 in a different league).
My guess would be Canon will need an adapter for EF lenses on its mirrorless but there will be little problem with that.

Are you going to hire, or buy? For the cost of an A9 body you could have a Fuji X body with a lens or three. If you're hiring, the A9 is a pretty easy choice, I know a guy who shoots on TV sets and loves everything about his A9. 
On the other hand this guy shoots Fuji on set:
https://www.fujirumors.com/behind-the-x-gear-meet-barry-wetcher-the-x-shooter-who-brings-fujifilm-to-hollywood/

For the record I shoot Fuji, but I don't do on set stills work. I pair my X-Pro2 with an X100F and it's great. The X100F is basically silent by default, the leaf shutter is barely audible, which is perfect when I'm shooting weddings and speeches and the like.

I read that as "the best mirrorless camera is in your hand" and then got very excited, but was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't a fantastic camera in disguise, but was just as it appeared - a donut.
All else being equal, those controls are spectacular.  I've bitched about mentioned it before, but being able to see exactly what your settings are and to specify any combination of them is just fantastic.  The fact that I can't set aperture, shutter speed and auto-ISO on my XC10 is basically against the Geneva Convention.

Check out Noam Kroll’s work with the Fuji X-T2 on his website.

I’ve heard a rumor that a lot of Hollywood cinematographers own Fuji mirrorless cameras for stills and casual videos... if this rumor is true... there’s probably a good reason. 

I think your question is which mirrorless camera is best for silent shooting...??
The answer undoubtedly is the Sony A9. For silent shooting you need to use a fully electronic shutter and the Sony A9 is the only camera out there with a 'stacked CMOS sensor' that enables an incredibly fast sensor readout of 1/160th of a second for stills. By contrast the A7iii/riii readout is 1/30th (I think) and the Fuji XT is 1/15th (I think). 
A slow or slowish sensor readout causes 2 problems. First if there is reasonable movement when the photo is shot, you will see distortions in the photo (similar to rolling shutter in video). Secondly you will tend to get a lot of 'banding' from artificial light sources such as fluorescents which can mostly be avoided with the Sony A9.
To put things in perspective, I virtually never use the silent shutter on my A7riii (unless I am in a situation where I have absolutely no choice).
The Sony A9 is a good video camera - full sensor readout 6k downrezzed to 4k, no crop, 1080 120p, decent afc, ibis  - however it is missing Sony picture profiles.
The other problem is that the Sony A9 with its tech doesnt come cheap. New around US$4000 but used around US$3000 or so. A plus is that you can use your Canon lenses with decent af and functionality (for stills) with an adapter.

I'd suggest that as this isn't a critical application you consider an all-in-one like the Sony RX100 series.  Not because it's well suited (although it may be), but because once you've rejected it you'll know exactly what your needs and wants are (and which is which).
Starting with simplicity and work your way up based on real requirements will ensure you don't overcomplicate it 

The best mirrorless camera is the one in your hand. 

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.

Looking back I owe everyone a big thank-you for using the forum and taking an interest in the blog, it is amazing what it has turned into with so little effort on my part  I think this place must be the only website on the entire internet without adverts. Long may it continue like that.
Got a GX9 arriving tomorrow... about time I did a review of something cheap with the big shift to high-end stuff. Let me know what you'd like to see in the review of it.

I own both lenses, and I just shot a quick test at home. I won't post those (the wife would not be pleased) but there's not a lot in it between those lenses at the same aperture. The Sigma is sharper at 18mm 3.5 (not surprising given the Canon is wide open there) but at 5.6 there's no practical difference. My 18-135 is the Nano USM version and optically it's pretty good. A bit soulless maybe but once you accept the compromises it does a good job paired with the C100mk2. 

The way I use it from 18mm to 30-ish it's an f4 lens, and from 35-135 it's a 5.6 lens. It actually doesn't click over to 5.6 until 85mm, but it hurts my brain to keep all that in there when I'm shooting. Face tracking works great for solo interviews, though it's not as good as the C200, and the C100mk2 is so clean even up to 12800 that I'm ok cranking ISO and keeping that lens on indoors as well. I like the extra range for fast moving jobs, and I don't know if it's the lens that does it or its the DPAF that does it, when you zoom in it it automatically changes focus to keep the same plane of focus -- so it's kinda parfocal. You will see the focus change and snap back in, but it's quick and doesn't hunt so it works very well.

I find the AF on the Sigma 18-35 works pretty well, it's a little slower but accurate. I was surprised how well DPAF worked even at 1.8, I love being able to do a pan and slide shot and have the AF track focus on the subject, it's like magic. 

I actually liked shooting m43 because I had more DoF -- even now with my C100mk2 my go to lens for completely uncontrolled run and gun is the 18-135, I'd set that thing to 5.6 and let the AF take care of the rest. Sometimes it's more important to get the subject in focus than to worry about separation. Plus I think it's weird to blur the background so much that you completely remove the subject from its context.

Dude, if your budget is that tight then I’d suggest not buying anything, because you already have the gear you need. With the Ex Tele mode you basically have a range between 24-160, which is about all you need. Since you’re travelling I’m assuming you’re looking for work when you get to wherever you’re going right? I’m guessing from the advice you’re after you don’t have a deep portfolio behind you to be able to pre-book work before you leave. So really, the work you should be looking for is as a second shooter for someone who is already established where you’re headed to, in which case what you want is to provide a specific utility. You have a gimbal and a lightweight and versatile camera/lens combo, so be a gimbal/second shooter for event and wedding videographers. That way you leverage the gear you have, and you get a foot in the door of that market, and you start building a network of other creatives who you can lean on for work. 
If you’re really itching to buy something get a decent lav mic (I have a cheap Rode one that sounds fine) and a Zoom H1, and a Rode VideoMicro for your camera. 
Oh, background separation is a function of camera / subject / background distance, don’t buy anything until you get a handle on that. Trust me, you can spend a lot of money and still be disappointed if you don’t know how to achieve what you want. And you can achieve separation through other means, like colour/costume, and composition, and lighting. And stop worrying about bokeh — concentrate on the parts of the frame you want people to pay attention to, not how pretty the blurry background is. 

I'd suggest working backwards from what you're trying to do.  
1) Work out what types of shots you are likely to want for your style of film-making - it can be useful to look at your previous work and look at what ended up in the final cut
2) Work out what you need to get those shots - there's no point having all the primes in the world if the situation requires being able to quickly change between a wide and tele shot to capture a moment, but also if your look is more important than getting every shot then a slow/bad lens may never make the final cut
3) Then work out what is the nicest / lightest / sharpest / fastest lenses you can afford
You might have the nicest lens in the world but if you miss the shot then the lens is worth less than a bad kit zoom that would have at least framed it right.

There's a much bigger audience online, but, as you're probably learning quickly, people aren't always as nice!
So the first question is who your audience is. (Online? Festival? Broad? Niche?) The second question is what your goal is with that audience. (Are you doing spec work to get hired to direct at somewhere like Buzzfeed? Trying to build a following for your own unique brand online? Trying to find like-minded creatives to work with or for? Trying to get a technical/craft job or exclusively writer/director?)
The bigger your audience, the more you'll have to stoop to the lowest common denominator. Look at YouTube stars like Pewdiepie and Jake Paul; that's the image of a successful online filmmaker. If your work doesn't resemble that, maybe don't go that route. If you want to direct spec ads, imitate ads and apply to production companies. If you want to direct at Buzzfeed, imitate Buzzfeed videos and apply at Buzzfeed. If you want to go to film school, submit according to the application process. 
But the more niche your voice/its potential audience, the harder it will be to find the audience and the harder it will be to monetize. But also, the more creative freedom you'll have, and hopefully the longer your brand will persist. (There are a few niche web series I love. They don't seem to make much money, but one of them has been around ten years now.)
But even finding your audience is sort of irrelevant unless you're great at marketing.
A family friend used to sell roles in his high school movies to finance them. I think he's now running one of the largest YouTube empires and is making seven figures. Ditto a friend of mine used to sell DVDs and now he runs a very successful corporate video production company. They changed audiences, but their strong sales skills remained. Ultimately it's the same marketing and promotional skills that worked in person that later worked online, and it's more the marketing than the filmmaking that gets you in the door, and then the filmmaking talent that sustains the success. I don't know if I have any talent with video, I hope I do! But I know I don't have much with marketing, or at least I'm uncomfortable with it due to low self-esteem. :/ And frankly not really liking a lot of online content these days or even a lot of theatrical films as much as I used to.
So I won't even be attempting what they did, but my audience is different anyway. We all have different audiences, or maybe we have many audiences for our different projects. I might be doing spec work rather than making a YouTube channel, or I might be applying to festivals... or even getting a PA or low-level job at a company that makes my favorite work just to meet the right people there. Or I had another idea that maybe someone might watch on YouTube. But a letter never goes anywhere if you don't know who to mail it to. If you just want to be internet famous, be a sociopath on YouTube. If you're inspired by a director you really love, reach out to him or her. If you feel you appreciate his or her work better than others, try to work for him or her. Be stubborn about it. Track your heroes down. Find their email. Ask every month to be a PA on a set of theirs. Travel to where they live for an interview. Then hand them that DVD (or script, or Vimeo link) in person. That's your audience of one. This actually works. Regardless of specific tactic (it all depends what you want personally), know your audience and what they want. Your audience might be one person. If you're doing a fan film it might be Marvel fans. If you're doing a camera vlog it might be camera fans. If it's something new... risky, but go for it. Plenty of different approaches depending on your audience. But know them. And know yourself.
Even the festival scene, which is somewhere in the middle of those two options, is all about marketing. I have friends who've gotten into nearly all the top ten festivals and the trick is they're part of that social network and they really really push hard with their applications, even hiring people to promote their films. The other trick is that once you get into a top ten festival, other festivals will ask to program you. The whole festival scene is a bit of a farce, but the farce is simply the disconnect between how they market and what the truth is. Big festivals need content to match their brand, so they're fairly conservative. Even if your brand is "edgy" you have to stay on brand, so it's a conservative approach to edgy. Small festivals need films that played big festivals, so they're even more conservative! (But knowing programmers personally–the DVD route, so the speak, matters here. And I was surprised to learn that a short at a major festival attracts more attention from a talent agency than a Vimeo staff pick and by far.)
The other really sneaky thing is that a lot of the most successful Vimeo videos are actually made with assistance from larger production companies or agencies or post houses, but are marketed as very guerrilla. This isn't always the case, some stories are true, but don't believe everything you read online. (Certainly don't believe me. If I knew what I were saying, I would be working now–not posting this!) But internet platforms aren't all they promise to be; that promise is just the marketing by YouTube and Vimeo to get you to produce content for them so that they can monetize it. The success stories of online filmmakers are their marketing. And they're very good at marketing. And you're their audience. So if you haven't had a lot of success online, maybe try a different route? 
The one thing NOT to believe is that if your work is creative and unique and great others will discover that and flock to you. I saw one of your videos and you have a good voice and should keep doing what you're doing, or exploring what you want to do next, whether it's more of the same or something new. Probably the most original voice I've seen on this forum, but this forum seems mostly to be about image quality and specs. I've seen more creative voices at Slamdance and SXSW and Sundance and Rooftop, for instance. (No offense, perhaps they're just more developed. and I have friends who pay the bills doing corporate and then make really wild and awesome festival films–so you can be interested in both markets for sure.) 
But the idea that people online will immediately recognize what you have to offer and leap to make more of it is a very myopic view. Look at Spielberg's first spec film, it's not a personal story. It's more an example of visual talent and competency. His creative voice developed after he got in the door directing TV. I think Eraserhead is the only example I can think of of a really outsider voice nailing its first landing. People see Jake Paul succeed and assume everyone should see their work and judge it better because of what an asshole Jake Paul is, but that's not how it works. Jake Paul is a genius at what he does. What he does is just act like a high school bully. The Kardashians are geniuses at what they do. But what they do is appeal to lowest common denominator, which is also the biggest audience there is. Don't judge them based on their audience; find a different one.
I'm on time out here for posting incorrect technical information, which I again apologize for. And I feel like I'll probably get some pushback for a lot of the above being factually incorrect; I expect a lot of it is, and I wouldn't take my advice if I were you, since I'm just an anonymous guy online. So take it with a grain of salt. But I do think knowing your audience, knowing how to market your work to them, and knowing how to meet them halfway is crucial. The first thing film schools do is to "normalize" your voice. They look for creative voices then tone them down and improve production value so those voices are tolerable to the other students and faculty and then eventually to festivals. (Although a lot of film schools aren't worth the money, so if you aren't rich, consider that they're also marketing their wares to you and want you to think they're gonna do things for you that maybe they can't. Some are good. But be wary and make sure you apply to the right ones if you do, and you definitely don't have to.) All media are social media, so look at your relationship with your audience as a relationship with a person (or cohort...), whether you make it a real personal relationship (selling DVDs, pursuing your favorite director or production company) or a virtual one. I think maybe this forum isn't the right audience for you (or for me) if we're trying to get into festivals, for instance. If I knew more technical stuff, it might be better for me. Different values. For instance, I have a lot of friends who've gotten into top ten festivals recently with 1080p/2k films, but here I keep getting reminded I need 4k. Both can be true, just for different audiences. (To be fair, some of those were shot at higher resolutions and delivered at 2k DCP... I ate my words once and I'll keep chewing.)
But the festival route is really hard and really slow. (Like filmmaking used to be!) And online feedback is really fast and comes with instant gratification. I don't know if the festival route is right for me, I don't know if anything is, if I even have the talent, or if I do, if there's an audience for it. But I think the replies you're receiving in this thread speak to a disconnect between what you're making and your audience's expectations. (Not to be rude.) So I'd give that some thought. Removed from your current outlets, what are your goals as a filmmaker? Who are your favorite filmmakers? If you could make anything and show it to one person what would it be and who would you show it to?
That's the trick. You're marketing yourself to get into a festival/get YouTube famous/work for your favorite director or at your favorite company. But they're also marketing toward you so you watch their content and believe in their brands. And marketing isn't about the audience or the creator exclusively, it's where the two meet. Know yourself. Know your audience. Meet halfway. 
But also take everything online (including this) with a grain of salt. Online relationships are rarely worth as much as those in person.
 

2004 called. They want your post back. 

Hey guys, what do you think about using stone tablets for media distribution? I just came down the mountain with a handful of them. 

+1 these are advanced techniques

If you're an independent artist of any type you gotta hustle. If you can make even $100 bucks selling DVDs that's $100 more bucks than you had before. Doesn't mean though that you don't explore more modern methods of distribution in conjunction. I feel like people are too quick to move on to the latest technology, eager to leave behind old technology before its even dead yet.
Physical media still accounts for 15 or so billion dollars in sales last year. Streaming only recently, as in 2016, made more revenue than physical media did. That's pretty remarkable given Apple hasn't updated/supported DVD Studio Pro since 2009 and Adobe hasn't updated/supported Encore since 2012, showing how early they'd given up on physical media. 
Indeed there are still areas in the country that don't have fast enough internet suitable for high quality video streaming. Other countries are even further behind. I live in a very rural state, Vermont, that has areas where they don't have high speed internet or even high speed wireless. For those areas streaming/downloading isn't feasible. 
I personally still get Blu-ray copies of movies I really love. Classic horror movies that have limited edition cases mostly. I'll then rip a digital copy for myself that I can watch while traveling, etc.