Mmmbeats

I have the GH5 with the XLR adapter and a MixPre6 as well as a C200. I think the XLR adapter or XLR straight into the C200 is great for a single mic or a mic and a backup mic, but I learned the hard way just a few days ago that if you have multiple speakers the Mix-Pre is way better. It was a pain to manually audio duck in Davinci Resolve the two speakers that I had; the stereo mix out of the MixPre for 4 speakers was less work than manually mixing two speakers from the onboard audio.
 
For the C70 I really don't consider the mini XLR a big deal, as you mentioned it is not as bad as mini HDMI. One thing I wouldn't do though is leave the adapters plugged in, I always feel like things sticking out of a camera port will weaken the circuit board over time as they get wiggled and moved in your bag. I'd just load up on about 6 adapters, two go in my emergency kit in my car (along with memory cards, random power cables, etc), two stay in the bag with the camera at all times (since they are so small) and two go in my dedicated audio case where I keep all of my cables, the MixPre, etc. 
 
Also, for my particular use case, this camera would primarily be a gimbal camera, audio would not be that important to me.

I've used the DMW (if I'm getting it's name right) and it's a really good unit.  I'll probably pick one up even if I get an external recorder, and even if I demote the GH5S.  The thing is though, I'm pretty sure you are still going to want to strip the camera from time to time, whether for transport, or for a top handle, or for a smaller package.  This makes it one more thing to manage and set up, one more thing to forget to pack! (I only very rarely have a packing incident!).
Mini XLR is not as much of a deficit as micro HDMI as the connection is still locking.  I'll probably just have a pair of short adaptors permanently attached if I can find a good way to secure them ( though I admit, that's just the kind of 'riggy' stuff I'm trying to get away from).
I do generally plug a rented Zoom recorder into the sound desk for redundant sound, but end up using the camera feed just for convenience.  Events are not my main line of work, so my gear is not yet optimised for it really.  Managing to service the jobs fine though, so it's not a big problem.

I'm not so much talking about making considered (though in my opinion, misguided) points like you have done.  I'm talking more about calling everybody else cunts, and then trying to pass it off as 'ironic' or a joke when called out about it 😉.

Yes, to concede a fair-point (because I wasn't very specific) if you're doing documentary or event work... something with allot of built-in features is probably worth it over pure-image-quality (or close enough quality). But, I'd still argue that if you have a controlled set, lighting, ect. a $5,000-$15,000 camera isn't going to magically get you better results than a Blackmagic or good DSLR. anymore. I've even seen a Alexa vs P6K video where the Pocket looked BETTER. Same with Red, the current Blackmagics look better, IMO, than even something like the bit-older Red Dragon's (which I've used extensively).

I'm going from memory so I can't verify where I saw these info segments, but I'm fairly confident that:

Yes, you can do punch in while recording (Panasonic have been killing me with the lack of this for years now!).
 
Yes, the speedbooster does impede the AF to an extent.  I believe it works just as well, but the coverage is reduced (from 80% to 60% of the screen real estate).
 
No, there aren't any EF-S-style crop RF lenses as far as I know.  Plus I doubt there will be.  Though perhaps 3rd party lenses (like Sigma) might be adapted? (I'm not so confident on this last paragraph).

I'm not so much talking about making considered (though in my opinion, misguided) points like you have done.  I'm talking more about calling everybody else cunts, and then trying to pass it off as 'ironic' or a joke when called out about it 😉.

I'm going from memory so I can't verify where I saw these info segments, but I'm fairly confident that:

Yes, you can do punch in while recording (Panasonic have been killing me with the lack of this for years now!).
 
Yes, the speedbooster does impede the AF to an extent.  I believe it works just as well, but the coverage is reduced (from 80% to 60% of the screen real estate).
 
No, there aren't any EF-S-style crop RF lenses as far as I know.  Plus I doubt there will be.  Though perhaps 3rd party lenses (like Sigma) might be adapted? (I'm not so confident on this last paragraph).

There's no video camera right now that checks off as many boxes as does the C70. That doesn't meant it's the right camera for everybody. 
However, it is amazing to see how many people require a built-in EVF, SDI-port, and RAW. And must let the world know the tragedy of their unmet needs. We all know you twits shoot on iPhones. The C70 has portrait mode too you cunts
 

Of course I would love to have everything the world has, thrown into the C70, but I am trying to be realistic.
Yes, I would love it to have raw, and e-ND, and full XLRs, and SDI, and ProRes, and Braw, and other things, but then it wouldn't be the C70, and it wouldn't cost 5000$, or whatever it costs.
I have the P4K, I have never shot braw, and that camera has NO AF while the C70 may have the best AF at the price point, less audio options, terrible battery life, no ergonomics whatsoever, less I/O, a smaller sensor ofcourse, no ND - which is like number one priority for video cameras. Why don't you go to the P4K thread to complain about all the issues and omissions, I wonder? 
If you compare the C200 release, which HAS raw, you can go and check my opinion back then, and you will see that I was right (same with the first Canon RF cameras), they were stop gap releases, not long time solutions like this C70 is. If you need raw more than what the C70 offers, the C200 will be quite cheap for people to buy it really soon.
Discussing for ever what a product does NOT have, it is just a waste of time in my opinion, but feel free to express yourself as you like ofcourse, sorry if I sounded autarchic, just can not see the point I guess.
The turning point for me, and a lot other professionals in the field, was 10 bit files, and that will be enough for most things in the near future at least, raw is good to have for cheap (P4K) but it isn't a selling point for me and the pros I see working around me.
Cheap raw solutions is more for hobbyists and semi-pros as I see it in real life. I literally have seen noone shooting raw in anything less than a feature, and definitely not on a C200 (par example), I believe using raw is a lot less important than we believe it is in some forums, and maybe Canon knows it.

I expect that B&H have got this wrong.  This is from Newshooter and reads a bit more convincing to me (though I'd prefer you to be right) :
 

Whilst I agree that the RAW back and forth discussion has definitely run its course; the last thing this thread needs is people just telling me what this camera can do and how wonderful Canon is being back in the game and delivering the goods etc etc..  I can read Canons marketing brochure for that.  
Any camera announcement thread should allow for talk of both the praise and the disappointments of a new camera, and shutting such chat down like lack of evf, fullframe and RAW for talk on how Canon finally strikes back is not of any interest to me.  
Let me make clear, I like this camera.  I like it a lot and I will be seriously looking at buying one.  However I want a balanced look at the pros and cons and not a fluff piece on Canon to help guide my decision.  
None of us have the camera yet and taking any critics of it now as though its a personal attack helps no one.  Everytime we get this with new cameras, especially Canon products; we hear counter arguments like, this camera wasn't designed for you, or its made for a different market... which is crap.  In a World where a hybrid does 8K when many professional video cameras do not, where we have BRAW from BM for just over a $1000, when even RED are bringing one of their cameras into the affordable range for low to mid budget users, I get weary being told what a camera should and shouldn't be.  
I do welcome positive talk of this camera and how this camera can work for you.  I also welcome discussions where this camera may let certain people down and why.  Looking at both sides will help me decide if this is the right camera for me.

There are several recent trends that make this difficult to assess. Past experience may not be a reliable indicator.
Historically most use of RAW video has been proprietary formats which were expensive and complicated in both acquisition and post. By contrast both Blackmagic's BRAW and ProRes RAW are cheap to acquire and easy to handle in post. However they are both fairly recent developments, especially the rapidly-growing inexpensive availability of ProRes RAW via HDMI from various mirrorless cameras. If a given technology has only been widely available for 1-2 years, you won't immediately see great penetration in any segment of the video production community. There is institutional inertia and lag.
However, long before BRAW and ProRes RAW, we had regular ProRes acquisition, either internally or via external recorders. Lots of shops have used ProRes acquisition because it avoids time-consuming transcoding and gives good quality in post. BRAW or ProRes RAW are no more complex or difficult to use than ProRes. This implies in the future, those RAW formats may grow and become somewhat more widely used, even in lower end productions.
Conflicting with this is the more widespread recent availability of good-quality internal 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs on mirrorless cameras. I recently did a color correction test comparing 12-bit ProRes RAW from a Sony FS5  via Atomos Inferno to 10-bit 4:2:2 All-Intra from an A7SIII, and even when doing aggressive HSL masking, the A7SIII internal codec looked really good.
So the idea is not accurate that the C70 is somehow debilitated because of not shipping with RAW capability on day 1. OTOH Sony will also face this same issue when the FX6 is shortly released. If it doesn't at least have ProRes RAW via HDMI to Atomos, that will be a perceptual problem because the A7SIII and S1H have it. It's also not just about RAW -- regular ProRes is widely used, e.g. various cameras inc'l Blackmagic record this internally or with an inexpensive external recorder.  The S1, S1H and A7SIII can record regular 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes to a Ninja V, the BMPCC4k can record that internally or via USB-C to a Samsung T5, etc. 
With a good quality 10-bit internal codec you may have less need for either RAW or ProRes acquisition. OTOH I believe some camera mfgs have an internal perceptual problem which is reflected externally in their products and marketing. E.g, I recently asked a senior Sony marketing guy what is the strategy for getting regular ProRes from the FX9. His response was why would I want that, why not use the internal codecs. There is some kind of disconnect, worsened by the new mirrorless cameras. Maybe the C70 lack of RAW is another manifestation. This general issue is discussed in the FX9 review starting at 06:25. While about the FX9 specifically, in broader terms the same issue (to varying degrees) affects the C70 and other cameras: 
 

I'm going to wager that the grown-up conversation going on on the other thread about the exciting new camera and it's capabilities is going to be a lot more interesting than this one.  Just a hunch. 

From what I can see this is literally the least expensive fully-equipped cinema camera by any of the major manufacturers currently available in the market. (I'm not including the z-cam range and things like that).
Apologies in advance if I've missed anything.

When your starting point for the grade is a better quality image than the RAW coming out of previous cameras, I doubt you'll be missing much in terms of gradibility. 
Perhaps if you're doing quite extreme colour isolations for effect, or if you need to rescue a mistake, then you might miss RAW. But for most applications this sensor + codec combo is probably going to provide a better graded image than most previous RAW cameras (in the price range, obviously). 
Canon have made a doozy of a workhorse cinema camera in the C300 III. It really does look the business, and I wish I could afford one! 
Of course a lesser release is not going to share it's full feature set. What would be the sense in that for Canon? 
So you just have to ask - is this a reasonable compromise at the price point or not? 
Personally I think it's a very generous offer.  A truly top class image. Very decent codecs and frame rates. Bold new form factor. 
I don't think RAW is such an unreasonable omission. 

I'm going to wager that the grown-up conversation going on on the other thread about the exciting new camera and it's capabilities is going to be a lot more interesting than this one.  Just a hunch. 

I don’t understand some of the negativity I’m seeing with the C70. It looks like a fantastic concept and will serve many people very very well.
People who want RAW from this aren’t understanding it’s purpose. At least in the UK - documentary, corporate, music videos, brand promos.... 99% shot with 8bit or 10bit codecs. 

Years ago I saw a post explaining various companies' segmentation strategies, and I think it still holds true today.
Canon have always made cameras that lack one specific major thing that you take for granted on other cameras at the same price point, apart from their very top models. This is why they have the cripple-hammer reputation. There's always ONE thing that's just a disappointment. For the C70, I'd say it's the EVF. For the R5, obviously, it's the recording time limits. 
The one time they neglected to do that was the 5D Mark II and they're still dealing with the unexpected consequences of that internally, I think. 
Panasonic by contrast have always had the reputation of giving you one specific thing that everyone else's camera lacks at a given price point. For DVX100 it was progressive scan. For HVX200 it was solid state recording and HD (of a sort). For the AF100 it was slowmo in HD. It persists to this day - I have a GH5 purely because it offers PROPER anamorphic shooting without costing the same as an Alexa. (I only wish their AF was up to scratch for video). 
Sony's pitch has always been technical advances. But they cannot design a user interface to save their lives, either physical or virtual (menu systems). It's the same with every Sony product I own, from PlayStations to BluRays. Great product technically, bloody awful ergonomics. For example, my Sony Blu-Ray player ignores the eject button if it's on standby. Every other player I've ever owned knows that if I press the button, I want the disk to eject. Now.  Only Sony makes me turn the player on first (thus incurring an interminable boot sequence delay). 
RED's pitch has always been resolution and readout speed, facilitated by the best video codec there is. I still love my original RED Scarlet- in some ways it outperforms my FX9 and I'll probably keep it for decades. The main problem that is they tend to be assholes; the world would be a much better place with licenced REDcode RAW everywhere. 
And Arri's has always been targeting the top end, but I can't afford one so I don't know how they differentiate their cameras. 
The C70 and R5 show me that Canon are still just being Canon. The trick is to figure out where the missing feature is and does it kill your use case?
Cheers, Hywel

I have to admit, I transcode all of my footage routinely regardless of camera, so I just consider them as acquisition codecs.

When your starting point for the grade is a better quality image than the RAW coming out of previous cameras, I doubt you'll be missing much in terms of gradibility. 
Perhaps if you're doing quite extreme colour isolations for effect, or if you need to rescue a mistake, then you might miss RAW. But for most applications this sensor + codec combo is probably going to provide a better graded image than most previous RAW cameras (in the price range, obviously). 
Canon have made a doozy of a workhorse cinema camera in the C300 III. It really does look the business, and I wish I could afford one! 
Of course a lesser release is not going to share it's full feature set. What would be the sense in that for Canon? 
So you just have to ask - is this a reasonable compromise at the price point or not? 
Personally I think it's a very generous offer.  A truly top class image. Very decent codecs and frame rates. Bold new form factor. 
I don't think RAW is such an unreasonable omission. 

When your starting point for the grade is a better quality image than the RAW coming out of previous cameras, I doubt you'll be missing much in terms of gradibility. 
Perhaps if you're doing quite extreme colour isolations for effect, or if you need to rescue a mistake, then you might miss RAW. But for most applications this sensor + codec combo is probably going to provide a better graded image than most previous RAW cameras (in the price range, obviously). 
Canon have made a doozy of a workhorse cinema camera in the C300 III. It really does look the business, and I wish I could afford one! 
Of course a lesser release is not going to share it's full feature set. What would be the sense in that for Canon? 
So you just have to ask - is this a reasonable compromise at the price point or not? 
Personally I think it's a very generous offer.  A truly top class image. Very decent codecs and frame rates. Bold new form factor. 
I don't think RAW is such an unreasonable omission. 

I'm going to wager that the grown-up conversation going on on the other thread about the exciting new camera and it's capabilities is going to be a lot more interesting than this one.  Just a hunch. 

I would choose H.265 if you have the hardware to work with it in post for the 50/60p stuff. It’s not a good capture format but it will have higher quality per bitrate than H.264. Depending on what profile they are using for H.265, 225Mbps is very sufficient for 50/60fps 4K. HFR video where there are 60/120 or more frames in a second each one is very similar so LongGOP compression works very well (except for lots of random motion of course).

Just watched the Pro-AV stream ... where one of the contributors uses a C200 (couple of them) and transitioned to the C300 MK III. He is a
professional "colourist" hired to correct others video.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8304151/
His take is that the picture out of the DGO sensor in XF_AVC All I is preferable to the Raw out of the C200. The DR of the sensor, low noise and color
obviates the need for RAW ... and with the new Canon Speed Booster the lack of FF may be a non-issue. So the best sensor in his mind
is the one in the C70 ...
I have begun a conversation with my dealer about dropping the 1 DX III for the C 70 ... and I have all MF glass. Canon have not addressed a flaw
in their Raw acquisition ... still getting corrupted frames in the lowest frame rate with their favored CFExpress cards ... great color workflow and
resolution but chasing bad frames adds 3X the time a normal render ...