MdB

Obviously it is, given they both have nearly identical form factors. Is that really so hard to understand? So instead of being patronising, how about point out specific examples? That shouldn't be too hard given how well understood the advantages are by everyone. 

Honestly the biggest disappointment for me is the lack of 3D tracking in photo, it's there but takes much longer than their DSLR's to use. Battery also seems like a gigantic issue again. Buffer is also way to small

I honestly have no idea why they would leave out dual card slots, they HAD to have seen the blowback Sony saw with that for years and that they would be directly compared to the A7III. 

Agreed. And this is important to me. But I can't help but feel that there is a sentiment that it will automatically be better because Sony = Sucks and Nikon = Ace! BUT the thing is people have been comparing the ergonomics of much larger cameras. It is difficult to make space or volume while also making things small. 
What about them in particular look better? Or better for bigger hands. They don't look any less cramped to me. They don't look any bigger to me. In fact I feel the buttons are more cramped (such as at the rear right hand bottom of the camera four buttons crammed right next to each other - Probably the worst place for thumbs to try and reach). 
That's fine and each person is different. Not saying the A7 III's controls are a shining beacon of amazingness (they aren't) but that the Nikon's don't look any better (but seemingly are assumed to be). 
Do you mean the front and rear control dials? Aren't they essentially in exactly the same place as the Sony's? What about them is an improvement? 
There are some nice touches, but it looks for the most part to being close enough to offer no real improvement. 
One of the major ergonomic differences that I see is that the Z6/7 are missing two control dials that the Sony's have. Instead they have two buttons on the top plate (the best access other than the rear top) to access the features that are on dials. However this means those buttons have to be used for that purpose, where the Sony's have two additional buttons. Then the Nikon has the two on the front plate next to the mount as a result. 
TL;DR - The Sony has ore dials, the Nikon more buttons. 
Some other observations:
- The grip area is essentially identical
- Overall the main controls are essentially the same
- The Nikon does have a bit wider gap between grip and mount, which does look like a small improvement
- The Nikon dials are different front and back, the rear coming from the D5500. I would prefer that they were the same (and see no advantage in their difference). 
- I presume the 4-way navigator on the Nikon is programmable like the Sony, but is unclear at this point. 
- The A9 has an additional 2 dials on it for more direct access again.
- LCD screen is nice to see make an appearance. Nikon have always kept them for their enthusiast models. However is probably a little redundant these days.  

Obviously it is, given they both have nearly identical form factors. Is that really so hard to understand? So instead of being patronising, how about point out specific examples? That shouldn't be too hard given how well understood the advantages are by everyone. 

I really fail to see where the drastically improved ergonomics are in these cameras. Someone care to actually point them out rather than just repeat the mantra 'and much better ergonomics' as an assumed throw away comment?

A Good Samaritan has kindly helped me out and done some side by side recordings of the FF 1080p mode and 1.7x 4K crop mode both recorded via the HDMI output to a BMVA4K. The results are basically as I expected, the 5D IV looks much nicer in that downsampled 4K mode and does seem to work in that way. I think with C-Log and DPAF using this recording method makes it a pretty killer option and am definitely looking to add one to my kit now. 
As an aside, the in camera 1080p does IMO look a lot better than Canon’s earlier efforts, like my 1DC (1DX) and 70D. 

A Good Samaritan has kindly helped me out and done some side by side recordings of the FF 1080p mode and 1.7x 4K crop mode both recorded via the HDMI output to a BMVA4K. The results are basically as I expected, the 5D IV looks much nicer in that downsampled 4K mode and does seem to work in that way. I think with C-Log and DPAF using this recording method makes it a pretty killer option and am definitely looking to add one to my kit now. 
As an aside, the in camera 1080p does IMO look a lot better than Canon’s earlier efforts, like my 1DC (1DX) and 70D. 

Pretty sure Canon, Nikon, Ricoh and Leica all make an array of full frame cameras. Granted most of them not mirrorless. 
It speaks volumes about the popularity of mirrorless, people seem to be missing that about this press release. 
So when the K1 II launched Pentax were #1? That seems to be the logic here. You're making the assumption that everyone is on an equal footing and therefore the brand with the latest release gets boosted to the top spot (temporarily). That is definitely NOT the case. Most Canon fanboys will gleefully state (when someone pans the lacklustre 6D II for example) "oh but it outsells the whole A7 range 5:1..." which is absolute bunk and has been for years. 
You do realise how little sense that makes? Are you just repeating what every other numpty is saying? 
Can definitely agree on this. 
Honestly I cannot see the point of this Nikon branded Sony clone that has fanboys drooling (and suddenly retracting everything they ever said about mirrorless). I also don't think that Nikon is the dominant brand that people think it is. Just take a look at their last mirrorless effort... abandoned. Now take a look at their action cameras... abandoned. They couldn't get a foothold in either market. Now look at how weak the EOS M line was, abandoned in the US immediately after launch. BUT the Canon name has built it up as a power in asian markets. Canon can do that, Nikon couldn't. Nikon couldn't beat (or even compete) with Sony in the 1" market. 
Disagree. My latest is a 1DC, but have had pro bodies dating back to the Nikon D1. My 1DC feels nothing like you describe. 
Couldn't agree more. More RX1 and RX10 IMO. But it isn't about controls, or what people crassly call 'colour science'. I just almost never feel good about images when I capture them on a Sony. I know I can make them good in post, but they simply don't jump out. Ergonomics and menus and features and lenses and abilities are all top notch, better than most I would argue. Yep, including menus. But the results just don't feel good. 
Fuji's lack of grip pre-X-H1 is a real put off for me. Works ok on an extra wide X-Pro2 with small primes... For everything else they're kind of garbage. It's just a shame a lot of the actual controls went backward with the X-H1 over the X-T2. 
People do all the time. It is genuinely head and shoulders above basically everything in the hybrid market and people notice. They also say 'oh that crop' or 'oh that terrible codec' when talking about things like 5D IV, or 'oh that useless AF' or obviously the mount when talking about Nikon. Though I would take the 5D IV for much of the reasons you state. 
Almost too much to take in here. Clear to say though that photo isn't a high priority for you and that's fair (as well as being a really swell place to be in that you're spoilt for choice at absolutely minimal outlay - so yay!). 
Yep. I find it remarkable that the anti-Sony crowd (lets call them fanboys) have being saying for so long 'oh those mirrorless toys, nobody wants those' and claiming that Sony is full of it when it comes to these sales numbers because according to their own (completely nonsense) calculations that nobody ever buys these cameras ever and it's only because Nikon can't keep up with demand for the D850... blah, blah, blah... 
Let me ask them this: If that is true, that nobody wants these cameras - WHY IS YOUR FAVOURITE BRAND(S) COPYING THEM ALMOST TO THE LETTER? There is clearly no market for these things, yet they've just put ALL their eggs in to that basket? Unbelievable. 
Yes but the people making these claims have absolutely zero clue just how much Sony is in that market. Like how the people claim some kind of superiority that their brand is being used by the newspapers to capture still images for the World Cup or Olympics, while not reading those platforms and watching the game(s) delivered to them on Sony broadcast systems costing 100x what was spent on the photography. Mind boggling. Oh and then make little fanboy jokes about how there is Sony branding at the stadium. 
I actually don't think they were capable of it when that camera came out. Next round they have the tech, whether they implement it or treat us with disdain (again) remains to be seen. I don't think any brand can just sit idle at this time. 
The original had some really special mojo. I too would rate it as one of my favourite ever cameras (stills and video). It's a shame in many ways that they cow tailed and went with a more DSLR-mini design in latter models. The original body had a more modern and dare I say premium design to it that fit (I felt) better with the mirrorless ethos (plus the S was the last and most refined of the original design). They also designed much prettier lenses then too, plus they didn't make everything enormous. I may just have to own one for the third time. 
Indeed and well said. Though I would say filmmaking is art and science. 
And the perfect example of this is the Sony F35  
 

Had and sold. The rolling shutter, 100/120fps and low light are probably the main 'advantages', but are mostly pretty slight. The A7R III IMO is a much nicer stills camera. If you can justify the difference, that's what I would get. Or wait. 
A73 has all the hype because of what you get for the money, where as the R3 is some 60% more expensive. 

Pretty sure Canon, Nikon, Ricoh and Leica all make an array of full frame cameras. Granted most of them not mirrorless. 
It speaks volumes about the popularity of mirrorless, people seem to be missing that about this press release. 
So when the K1 II launched Pentax were #1? That seems to be the logic here. You're making the assumption that everyone is on an equal footing and therefore the brand with the latest release gets boosted to the top spot (temporarily). That is definitely NOT the case. Most Canon fanboys will gleefully state (when someone pans the lacklustre 6D II for example) "oh but it outsells the whole A7 range 5:1..." which is absolute bunk and has been for years. 
You do realise how little sense that makes? Are you just repeating what every other numpty is saying? 
Can definitely agree on this. 
Honestly I cannot see the point of this Nikon branded Sony clone that has fanboys drooling (and suddenly retracting everything they ever said about mirrorless). I also don't think that Nikon is the dominant brand that people think it is. Just take a look at their last mirrorless effort... abandoned. Now take a look at their action cameras... abandoned. They couldn't get a foothold in either market. Now look at how weak the EOS M line was, abandoned in the US immediately after launch. BUT the Canon name has built it up as a power in asian markets. Canon can do that, Nikon couldn't. Nikon couldn't beat (or even compete) with Sony in the 1" market. 
Disagree. My latest is a 1DC, but have had pro bodies dating back to the Nikon D1. My 1DC feels nothing like you describe. 
Couldn't agree more. More RX1 and RX10 IMO. But it isn't about controls, or what people crassly call 'colour science'. I just almost never feel good about images when I capture them on a Sony. I know I can make them good in post, but they simply don't jump out. Ergonomics and menus and features and lenses and abilities are all top notch, better than most I would argue. Yep, including menus. But the results just don't feel good. 
Fuji's lack of grip pre-X-H1 is a real put off for me. Works ok on an extra wide X-Pro2 with small primes... For everything else they're kind of garbage. It's just a shame a lot of the actual controls went backward with the X-H1 over the X-T2. 
People do all the time. It is genuinely head and shoulders above basically everything in the hybrid market and people notice. They also say 'oh that crop' or 'oh that terrible codec' when talking about things like 5D IV, or 'oh that useless AF' or obviously the mount when talking about Nikon. Though I would take the 5D IV for much of the reasons you state. 
Almost too much to take in here. Clear to say though that photo isn't a high priority for you and that's fair (as well as being a really swell place to be in that you're spoilt for choice at absolutely minimal outlay - so yay!). 
Yep. I find it remarkable that the anti-Sony crowd (lets call them fanboys) have being saying for so long 'oh those mirrorless toys, nobody wants those' and claiming that Sony is full of it when it comes to these sales numbers because according to their own (completely nonsense) calculations that nobody ever buys these cameras ever and it's only because Nikon can't keep up with demand for the D850... blah, blah, blah... 
Let me ask them this: If that is true, that nobody wants these cameras - WHY IS YOUR FAVOURITE BRAND(S) COPYING THEM ALMOST TO THE LETTER? There is clearly no market for these things, yet they've just put ALL their eggs in to that basket? Unbelievable. 
Yes but the people making these claims have absolutely zero clue just how much Sony is in that market. Like how the people claim some kind of superiority that their brand is being used by the newspapers to capture still images for the World Cup or Olympics, while not reading those platforms and watching the game(s) delivered to them on Sony broadcast systems costing 100x what was spent on the photography. Mind boggling. Oh and then make little fanboy jokes about how there is Sony branding at the stadium. 
I actually don't think they were capable of it when that camera came out. Next round they have the tech, whether they implement it or treat us with disdain (again) remains to be seen. I don't think any brand can just sit idle at this time. 
The original had some really special mojo. I too would rate it as one of my favourite ever cameras (stills and video). It's a shame in many ways that they cow tailed and went with a more DSLR-mini design in latter models. The original body had a more modern and dare I say premium design to it that fit (I felt) better with the mirrorless ethos (plus the S was the last and most refined of the original design). They also designed much prettier lenses then too, plus they didn't make everything enormous. I may just have to own one for the third time. 
Indeed and well said. Though I would say filmmaking is art and science. 
And the perfect example of this is the Sony F35  
 

I'm not sure what your argument is? Wasn't I agreeing with what you're saying? I'm a producer and have worked in the broadcast space. 
I was agreeing that most people don't have a clue the kind of gear and investment in that area. And it isn't just cameras, it's the whole workflow right through to broadcast. As you say, scary money. The people saying this stuff usually are weak at the idea of a $10k lens. Not the 1/4 million dollar tape deck. 

I didn't say it sucks, I also don't think it is weightless and magical. I think it is partly a very utilitarian design and I think that it is based on a nearly 30 year old design in a market that is well known for not liking change. I would argue I much prefer a C200 over a Sony PDW-900, but ENG stalwarts still run around with big ol' ENG cams. 
I think it works well as a body hanging off a big long heavy lens with a monopod propped underneath where the weight isn't on the wrist and the body is there for control and swinging things around. I think when you have a stumpy and heavy lens, like my Sigma Art 85 or the 105 Art, then the extra heft of the body is actually not good at all. Even with modestly heavy lenses. At that point the smaller body is actually better IMHO. 
Canon's system is far from complicated. But their tracking is just not as well set up or works as well. Saying that, most people using them aren't using the famed tracking modes anyway. In typical AF-C Canon is still faster than Nikon (and very easy to use). 
 
True. Canon are flooding the bottom of the market with dozens of entry level DSLRs. But the funny thing is, in these discussion forums NOBODY cares about those. And in the product space we do care about, Sony just took the top spot in North America. 
Of course you are. You are stating that it is obvious that Sony are taking this spot because they are the only ones with a recent release. This couldn't be further from the truth and is a device many are using to downplay the significance of this announcement. It isn't a small sample size at all. It is half a financial year in one of the biggest markets on the planet. Sample sizes don't get much bigger. I love how Canon make these announcements every 6 months and everyone just nods along. Every time Sony say something similar everyone disagrees. 
Of course it does. Do you care how many 1500Ds Canon sold? How about D3400s Nikon dropped? In the higher end of the market (not the top end), Sony have just proven that they can not only exceed Nikon in #2, but Canon in #1. Yes Nikon claimed something similar earlier this year. Again that's significant in that Canon have held the #1 spot for so long, to see this tidal wave of change will force them to adjust. 
The numbers are literally there, in this release and you want to try and still make that claim? Are you serious? Sony outsold Canon over half a year with their A7 (and A9) products over the entire portfolio of FF products from Canon. That is a far cry from the claims the 6D II (on it's own) would outsell the entire Sony catalogue. I know for a fact that people have a VERY skewed perception of how much Canon actually sell of these things vs Sony (and others). Also if you look on ANY sales chart you can find, a number of individual Sony FF models will be outselling the 6D II. That's one model on it's own outselling the Canon on it's own. Same can be said about the 5D IV and 1DX II. None of these have ever been particularly hot sellers at any time. 

Consider this: The person you describe is essentially not going to be buying ANYTHING. They are therefore no longer part of the market and manufacturers can't really make them something they need. So nobody is gunning for that non-existent market. However they MIGHT be able to snare a few of those from that group that want to downsize (reducing business, changing focus, retiring etc) or want a smaller companion option without the compromises. Nobody with a D850 and $15k worth of lenses is dragging that around to picnics. They are exactly the sort of market that might not be satisfied with just a smartphone. This becomes a 'dabble' system. 
New buyers building new systems from scratch are buying mirrorless. These manufacturers know that, that's why they are pursuing it. They can't live off their stalwarts forever. 
One of the BIGGEST things Sony are claiming (that again nobody seems to be picking up on nor understanding), is not that they are poaching Canon and Nikon sales, that they are actually building new sales from non-existing customers at a really significant rate. In a shrinking market that is a huge deal. Fanboys seem to want to get caught up in whatever else, to me that is the most signifiant thing. 
I don't think we will. The product will be announced, but I don't think details like how well adapted lenses work will be available for some time yet. 
Exactly. Nikon has been particularly hard hit by all this change. I don't think the 23rd is about launching a product (I don't think it will be hitting stores for months), it is a desperate attempt and plea to 'wait'. 
 
Well on sensor can have many more sites that collectively gather more light. My M50 mostly out focuses my 1DC, especially in low light. My (sold) A73 definitely out focussed the 1DC in low light. I think this is an incredibly outdated notion. 
 
Again strongly disagree. That's assuming that Sony has the market strength to reach number 1 just because they have the newest release. Most of the fanboys out there would disagree Sony was ever in such a position. It's never been the case in the past that 'just because' Sony have the newest one out they are also definitely in #1. I mean Nikon have never been #1 just because they had a newer model than Canon before. It's a silly notion being spread around to downplay the significance of this shift. There has ALWAYS been a duopoly and now that is being shattered. This is incredibly good times for us (the consumers) that I don't know why people are getting their backs up about it (elsewhere, not saying that's happening here). 
You know you don't have to use Log right  I think it is one of the downfalls of the Sony's - They give you Log in everything, so we feel compelled to use it! They are capable of outputting a decent ready-to-use picture too. 
Personally have never cared who is number one. But I agree, it will be swings and roundabouts. It will be nice to have even more options. 
645Z is a wonderful beast

Pretty sure Canon, Nikon, Ricoh and Leica all make an array of full frame cameras. Granted most of them not mirrorless. 
It speaks volumes about the popularity of mirrorless, people seem to be missing that about this press release. 
So when the K1 II launched Pentax were #1? That seems to be the logic here. You're making the assumption that everyone is on an equal footing and therefore the brand with the latest release gets boosted to the top spot (temporarily). That is definitely NOT the case. Most Canon fanboys will gleefully state (when someone pans the lacklustre 6D II for example) "oh but it outsells the whole A7 range 5:1..." which is absolute bunk and has been for years. 
You do realise how little sense that makes? Are you just repeating what every other numpty is saying? 
Can definitely agree on this. 
Honestly I cannot see the point of this Nikon branded Sony clone that has fanboys drooling (and suddenly retracting everything they ever said about mirrorless). I also don't think that Nikon is the dominant brand that people think it is. Just take a look at their last mirrorless effort... abandoned. Now take a look at their action cameras... abandoned. They couldn't get a foothold in either market. Now look at how weak the EOS M line was, abandoned in the US immediately after launch. BUT the Canon name has built it up as a power in asian markets. Canon can do that, Nikon couldn't. Nikon couldn't beat (or even compete) with Sony in the 1" market. 
Disagree. My latest is a 1DC, but have had pro bodies dating back to the Nikon D1. My 1DC feels nothing like you describe. 
Couldn't agree more. More RX1 and RX10 IMO. But it isn't about controls, or what people crassly call 'colour science'. I just almost never feel good about images when I capture them on a Sony. I know I can make them good in post, but they simply don't jump out. Ergonomics and menus and features and lenses and abilities are all top notch, better than most I would argue. Yep, including menus. But the results just don't feel good. 
Fuji's lack of grip pre-X-H1 is a real put off for me. Works ok on an extra wide X-Pro2 with small primes... For everything else they're kind of garbage. It's just a shame a lot of the actual controls went backward with the X-H1 over the X-T2. 
People do all the time. It is genuinely head and shoulders above basically everything in the hybrid market and people notice. They also say 'oh that crop' or 'oh that terrible codec' when talking about things like 5D IV, or 'oh that useless AF' or obviously the mount when talking about Nikon. Though I would take the 5D IV for much of the reasons you state. 
Almost too much to take in here. Clear to say though that photo isn't a high priority for you and that's fair (as well as being a really swell place to be in that you're spoilt for choice at absolutely minimal outlay - so yay!). 
Yep. I find it remarkable that the anti-Sony crowd (lets call them fanboys) have being saying for so long 'oh those mirrorless toys, nobody wants those' and claiming that Sony is full of it when it comes to these sales numbers because according to their own (completely nonsense) calculations that nobody ever buys these cameras ever and it's only because Nikon can't keep up with demand for the D850... blah, blah, blah... 
Let me ask them this: If that is true, that nobody wants these cameras - WHY IS YOUR FAVOURITE BRAND(S) COPYING THEM ALMOST TO THE LETTER? There is clearly no market for these things, yet they've just put ALL their eggs in to that basket? Unbelievable. 
Yes but the people making these claims have absolutely zero clue just how much Sony is in that market. Like how the people claim some kind of superiority that their brand is being used by the newspapers to capture still images for the World Cup or Olympics, while not reading those platforms and watching the game(s) delivered to them on Sony broadcast systems costing 100x what was spent on the photography. Mind boggling. Oh and then make little fanboy jokes about how there is Sony branding at the stadium. 
I actually don't think they were capable of it when that camera came out. Next round they have the tech, whether they implement it or treat us with disdain (again) remains to be seen. I don't think any brand can just sit idle at this time. 
The original had some really special mojo. I too would rate it as one of my favourite ever cameras (stills and video). It's a shame in many ways that they cow tailed and went with a more DSLR-mini design in latter models. The original body had a more modern and dare I say premium design to it that fit (I felt) better with the mirrorless ethos (plus the S was the last and most refined of the original design). They also designed much prettier lenses then too, plus they didn't make everything enormous. I may just have to own one for the third time. 
Indeed and well said. Though I would say filmmaking is art and science. 
And the perfect example of this is the Sony F35  
 

A7S original - plenty of bargains around on those these days. 

Downside of the C200B is that you lose the touch to focus (and if DPAF is important then the area selection should be too). Plus if you are using an external recorder as you've mentioned, you can't really have the display info on it, such as exposure settings etc on your clean feed external recorder. Honestly think the savings are so not worth it (unless you really want to use it remotely anyway). 

Downside of the C200B is that you lose the touch to focus (and if DPAF is important then the area selection should be too). Plus if you are using an external recorder as you've mentioned, you can't really have the display info on it, such as exposure settings etc on your clean feed external recorder. Honestly think the savings are so not worth it (unless you really want to use it remotely anyway). 

@newfoundmass He’s been pretty cool and helpful to me... but I could be one “dumb” comment away from receiving his wrath... lol.

Evidence suggests unable. Using MJPEG is not about protecting their product lines, they could do that with any codec. It is that they didn't have the processing to compress 4K images to MPEG4 on the fly in a small and power efficient form factor. Therefore they had to use the enormous MJPEG which required CF cards as they didn't have the write speed to SD in any comfortable way. So only models with CF or Cfast got 4K. That's 1DC, 5D IV and then C-series (but even then only the recent C200 have been able to do really compressed 4K). 
Digic 8 is what has enabled MPEG4 compression on the fly in such a tiny camera and onto SD cards. XF400 seemingly uses a similar camcorder version of that processing (and C200 maybe). At present they don't seem to be able to downsample on the fly, which is why we still get windowed modes on all of these cameras. The next generation of sensor may be able to provide a 4K full sensor feed right off the sensor, so the image processor still just needs to compress that 4K feed. 
The M50 is the only camera I know of from Canon that outputs 4K over HDMI (the C300 II might? - I'm sure someone knows the answer to that). All others that have 4K downsample the 4K out to 1080p. It is also possible to get nearly clean 4K out.
So that's all quite a big jump in the technology available in this little camera. I DEFINITELY think the DPAF being disabled is about being unwilling. They crippled it on purpose. Typical Canon.  Canon have promised to be much more focussed on video in the next wave of products starting with this, which is already a big leap (for them). Really looking forward to see what Canon launch in the next 12 months. 

I was thinking back today just how much I enjoyed the images produced by my beloved old Sony FS100.  I have shot with quite a few cameras since then, but I think I can honestly say that the FS100 produced some of the best-looking images on a consistent basis for me than any other camera I have worked with since.  I shot primarily with Glen Cairn's G log ultimate which gave me beautiful dynamic range and color straight out of camera.  Many times my grade was a simple lowering of the blacks and white balance adjustment.  And, the files for 24mb/sec AVCHD, so easy in post. 
We moved on with cameras because of the size and ergonomics but I think that if Sony rehoused the FS100 sensor in a mirrorless body today, I would be the first buyer.  Here are some 720p images from some of my old films for posterity sake.  Does anyone else have fond memories with this camera?  Some stills from your work with it? 

Not to state the obvious, but C100 and 80D are just such completely different leagues. I wouldn’t use 80D footage personally, C100 on the other hand is gorgeous. It’s also about a million times more enjoyable to use, plus SO much more practical. 
Save for the C100, you will be so grateful you did. Wait it out, they’ve gotten so affordable. I sold mine for $1600 AUD, which is less than $1300 USD. I’ve seen others for similar price. I’m halfway tempted to buy another one, but with DPAF. But then I can get a MkII for not ‘that’ much more. C100 is worth every penny. 

Me too. Missed out on one twice and nearly missed this one. Got it as basically new condition for less than an equivalent 1DX - Pretty stoked. 
Honestly the C100 is still a very very viable camera. WAY more practical than a 1DC in my experience of both. I thought I would have a C100 and a 1DC for those times that I really needed the special look and that's probably what I'll end up with. I sold my MkI with the plan to buy a MkII just for the better viewfinder and the DPAF upgrade plus the 50/60p. But it hasn't happened yet. I still miss it, a lot. The 1DC in my opinion does not have as a nice output in the S35 mode, it's nice but not C100 nice. The 1080p out of the HDMI using the 4K mode IS better. BUT then you either need monsterous CF cards or you miss out on dual record you get on the C100. The 4K is very nice, I haven't given it that much of a workout. But man that output going to my new BM Video Assist 5" (which is a perfect match for this camera IMO) is nice and has a lot of flexibility in post. Pretty bad rolling shutter in that mode though, unlike the S35 and C100. C100 just looks SO good with such natural motion with great rolling shutter. 
Add XLRs, NDs, EVF, mounting points, full sized HDMI, amazing grip, top handle, perfect size and controls AND DPAF. 
C100 (I or II) is a better tool. 1DC is a great stills camera with some really lovely video output when absolutely needed. 

All your normal UWA zooms too, like Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and 14-20mm f/2 etc. Plus the wider ones like Sigma 8-16mm. 
Those Rokinons are all awesome, have had the 12/2, 21/1.4, 35/1.2 and 50/1.2. The 21/1.4 is the weakest, but still fantastic. 
I wouldn't call it a 'good' 1080p camera, just slightly better than some previous Canons. I also wouldn't be giving the 'ergonomics' nod to the M50 either, it's kind of junk in every possible way. 
ML could be really, really interesting! 
How about a lens with IS? Seems like a good start to me. 
New Blackmagic Pocket 4K should be good to go without major rigging IMO. 
Fuji, the X-T2 is a lot cheaper. But yes the Fujis are a bit lacking. 
Canon, yep pretty much only cinema line (for now). 
GH5... nah. Although focus issues are probably around the 4K modes more so than the 1080p. 
Sony's don't overheat in 1080p (or haven't for a VERY long time now). In Sony the best options for nice 1080p are the A7S (original is cheap as these days and still produces stunning 1080p) and the A6000 (still better than the A6300/A6500) and the A7 III is pretty darn good (and really good 24/25/30/50/60/100/120p modes throughout). 
Personally though, the C100 is still one of the best, if not best if you want just really nice 1080p. Plus it has all the other benefits and as other have mentioned is reasonably small when the handle it removed, but you don't want to go without the side handle. 
How about the little box camera Canon make for industrial purposes based on the C100 II? Looks awesome for drones and gimbals and stuff too. Nobody talks about it. I want to say MS20 something... 
Me either. I own the camera and has been nothing but regret. It's not nice. There is very little I can say about it that is good. 
I'd be happy enough with the guts of the XF400 in the XC10/15 body. They are kind of from the same family. But the newer sensor has DPAF and 4K60 and 120fps 1080 etc. The XF400 actually kind of looks like it fits your needs. Only downside for me on that camera is lack of C-Log (but does have Wide DR). 
I would be surprisingly ok with that. Canon have nothing in their range below the C200, except the underpowered XC10/15. An updated version of those that sits between would be wonderful. In fact RED threatened for years to produce something like that and never did. 
C200 is quite a bit bigger than C200. C100 MkI to MkII is nominal at best, the EVF pokes out a lot more on the MkII. Are you thinking of the C300 / C500? 
Yes please! In fact let's not really bring anything from the M50 except maybe the processing to finally get Canon files into smallish codecs (straight to cheap SD cards). Oh and the nice 4K output on the M50 please. 
 
Where did the lens go? That doesn't look right.