Jedi Master

I agree that we're making large strides and will continue to do so.
I've been into high end audio for over 20 years and I see parallels between the audio analog vs digital debates and the film ones.  In some ways digital audio is quite far ahead of film, and if I extrapolate from that then my predictions for digital video are that:
Digital will keep getting better Eventually it will reach thresholds where the engineers say that anything beyond that is imperceptible After that there will be people who say that analog is still better, and the engineers will tell them that they're either suffering from bias or that they are in love with the deficiencies of analog Digital development will stop or be severely limited once the engineers suggest things aren't perceptible anymore The connoisseurs will still pursue higher performance digital but they will be a tiny percentage in a minority that make up a tiny industry so will struggle to make headway and to make matters worse for the connoisseurs there will be people who like analog because of it's nostalgia and the engineers will not distinguish between the two groups There are examples of this on this forum already:
discussing the benefits of RAW (which are real, but are very very niche at this price point) discussion of things like Motion Cadence which not only can't be measured but no-one seems to understand what might even be involved, so is ripe for the engineers to say doesn't exist and in digital video we're a long way away from the limits of human perception:
14bit RAW might be approaching it but after grading it might not be there 4K is only beyond perception if viewed on a screen occupying a minimum percentage of the angle of vision (ie, only not visible if screens are too small or too far away) and only if they haven't been stretched or processed in post (eg, digital stabilisation) and if used to capture 360 video is woefully inadequate when viewed with goggles 24fps is linked to the minimum frame rate for humans to observe continuity of motion rather than a slideshow, no-where near the limits of human perception which are being explored by computer games and are upwards of 100fps (IIRC)

My frontrunner at the moment, the C300 Mk3, is easily switchable between EF and PL. Only four screws. 

My frontrunner at the moment, the C300 Mk3, is easily switchable between EF and PL. Only four screws. 

Several issues with photo lens: 
Most have focus-by-wire, which I find extremely annoying. Most have very short focus throws. Most have no aperture rings and can only set aperture electronically. Most have lots of plastic and aren't as robust as cine lenses. None have 0.8 MOD focus and aperture gearing. Most don't have consistent front diameters across the line. Little correction for focus breathing.

Now that I've got the ACES workflow more or less under control in Davinci, I went back and redid the S1H footage I downloaded and I like the results. I'd expect the BS1H would produce similar results since it uses the same sensor as the S1H.
Is the L mount used on the BS1H strong enough to support typical cine lenses?
Anyone know if the BS1H can do internal recording using an H.264 codec? The specs on B&H's website indicate it can only do H.265. This is a concern to me as although I have a very capable PC (32 cores, 128GB RAM, beefy Nvidia GPU, and RAID-0 SSDs), H.265 footage plays and scrubs sluggishly in Davinci while H.264 footage is smooth. I'd hate to have to transcode everything before editing it.
 

Lots of great discussion, which I find very helpful--thanks guys!
I thought I'd offer some clarification of a few things.
First, let's avoid too much talk about wasting money and motives. As I've said, I'm just a hobbyist and spending $10K on a new camera is not a financial burden at all.
As I originally stated, my main application is scenics. Not necessarily wildlife, except where wildlife happens to be present--we don't go out of our way to shoot birds and other wildlife, hence we have no need for long lenses.
Weight and bulk aren't too big a concern either as most of our work is done close to the car or within a mile of the car. I have a cart that I use to carry things when walking more than a hundred yards from the car. My prior still photography experience is large format, so I'm used to carrying big, bulky things.
Several have mentioned budgeting for other equipment. I already have most of this covered as I have a nice Sachtler fluid head and tripod, a Zoom sound recorder and Rode shotgun mic, filters, etc. Sure, I could upgrade some of this, particularly the microphone as some suggested, but I think I have most of the basics covered.
Regarding sound, most of what we record near the camera is unusable due to crowds of people talking, cars passing on the road, wind noise, etc. I end up replacing 95% of recorded sound with music anyway.
For lenses, I plan to start buying cine lenses in PL mount. I wish I could afford ARRI Signature Primes or Zeiss Supreme Primes, but that's not in the cards. I'm looking more along the lines of the DZO Vespids, so in other works, around $1000-1500 per lens. I'll probably get these in FF even if I end up with a Super35 camera, just to make them a little more future-proof.
One big want is reliability. I try to buy the most reliable things I can. As a private pilot, I'm especially sensitive to reliability concerns--I've never had to make an engine-out emergency landing on a golf course or highway, and I prefer it that way! I want my camera equipment to be just as reliable.
Covering some of the other points people raised:
Slow motion. Don't need it. I think it looks too cliché in nature videos. DR. Yes, important. Sharpness. Important. Low-light. Somewhat less important. Twilight yes, nightline shooting, no. AF. Absolutely not needed. TC. Not important. Gimbal compatibility. Not important. Shallow DOF. Not important. I prefer lots of DOF. RAW. I think I'd like having RAW based on experience grading RAW footage I've downloaded. Rolling shutter. Not an issue as I shoot on a tripod 100% and do slow pans. Battery life. Not a big deal as I'll have spares close by. Internal ND. A real plus, but not a dealbreaker.  Anamorphic. Nope.

Lots of great discussion, which I find very helpful--thanks guys!
I thought I'd offer some clarification of a few things.
First, let's avoid too much talk about wasting money and motives. As I've said, I'm just a hobbyist and spending $10K on a new camera is not a financial burden at all.
As I originally stated, my main application is scenics. Not necessarily wildlife, except where wildlife happens to be present--we don't go out of our way to shoot birds and other wildlife, hence we have no need for long lenses.
Weight and bulk aren't too big a concern either as most of our work is done close to the car or within a mile of the car. I have a cart that I use to carry things when walking more than a hundred yards from the car. My prior still photography experience is large format, so I'm used to carrying big, bulky things.
Several have mentioned budgeting for other equipment. I already have most of this covered as I have a nice Sachtler fluid head and tripod, a Zoom sound recorder and Rode shotgun mic, filters, etc. Sure, I could upgrade some of this, particularly the microphone as some suggested, but I think I have most of the basics covered.
Regarding sound, most of what we record near the camera is unusable due to crowds of people talking, cars passing on the road, wind noise, etc. I end up replacing 95% of recorded sound with music anyway.
For lenses, I plan to start buying cine lenses in PL mount. I wish I could afford ARRI Signature Primes or Zeiss Supreme Primes, but that's not in the cards. I'm looking more along the lines of the DZO Vespids, so in other works, around $1000-1500 per lens. I'll probably get these in FF even if I end up with a Super35 camera, just to make them a little more future-proof.
One big want is reliability. I try to buy the most reliable things I can. As a private pilot, I'm especially sensitive to reliability concerns--I've never had to make an engine-out emergency landing on a golf course or highway, and I prefer it that way! I want my camera equipment to be just as reliable.
Covering some of the other points people raised:
Slow motion. Don't need it. I think it looks too cliché in nature videos. DR. Yes, important. Sharpness. Important. Low-light. Somewhat less important. Twilight yes, nightline shooting, no. AF. Absolutely not needed. TC. Not important. Gimbal compatibility. Not important. Shallow DOF. Not important. I prefer lots of DOF. RAW. I think I'd like having RAW based on experience grading RAW footage I've downloaded. Rolling shutter. Not an issue as I shoot on a tripod 100% and do slow pans. Battery life. Not a big deal as I'll have spares close by. Internal ND. A real plus, but not a dealbreaker.  Anamorphic. Nope.

Cool story, but nobody's asking you your opinion of how they spend their money.  If the OP has more than $4k in their pocket and wants to buy the best camera for what they're doing, that's their choice.  They don't need some toxic internet person yelling at them about other ways they could spend the money.  Not everybody bases their spending decisions on purely utilitarian criteria.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying I'm a Roger Deakins or a Hoyte von Hoytema (and not even close), and it's likely that the OP isn't either, but please do go lecture either one of them on how dumb they are to shoot with multiple $100k Arri kits and $50k Venice setups.

Anyway, there are also "literally millions" of other ways that you could spend your time, other than criticizing other people's hobby budgets.  Maybe you should find some of them.

If video was my profession, I'd agree 100% with you. But it's not my profession and I'm not spending money to make money, just to have fun with it.
My car will do 200 MPH even though the speed limit around here is 65 MPH. Overkill? Yes, but I enjoy driving it despite not being able to use it to its full potential, and because I can afford it. The same principle applies to my choice of camera--I want something I can use and enjoy even if I'll never make a cent with it.

1. What makes you(tuber) think that I'm interesting to look at your face most of the time? If your video is about Something, make it to be about that Something, not about your narcissistic persona.
2. "Do not saw the air too much with your hand thus, but use all gently, for in the very torrent, tempest, and (as I may say) whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness." Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene 2, 1603 AD. - So, tie your hands behind your back until you get used to not sawing the air.
3. If you must have some kind of opening, make it short. And do not let me wait for 30-60-90 seconds for actual start, go for It as soon as possible.
4. Also, do not put loud soundtrack that drums or screams into my ears. I'm not interested in your "musical" taste, nor I came to watch you video for that. Be polite. (And try not to use loud soundtrack in background that interferes with your voice and words.) Be articulate.
5. Do not bother me by asking to like or subscibe to your video)s). If they are interesting to me, then I'll do it.
6. Rehearse or make a plan beforehand, practice, that will make you more "pro" than any other gimmick.
7. Try to be economic with time. Do not waste yours, nor mine. Be short, precise and (and at least try to be) intelligent. Do not repeat yourself.
8. Find someone who would be critical but fair about your videos, and show them to him or to her, then listen. Four eyes could see more than two. Especially if you are trying to be innovative.
9. Don't just give to me your precious opinions. Give me the reasons why you think so-and-so, and then I'd accept your opinions (or I won't).
10. Go to the good museums, read clever books, watch classic movies. Your personal culture always needs improving.

Glad to hear you're enjoying it!
Some cameras record "super-whites" which are values above 100%.  They can be recovered if you pull down the exposure so they come into the "legal" range of 0-100%.  IIRC my Canon XC10 does it, and my Panasonic GX85 definitely does it.
Yet another reason to use colour space transforms rather than LUTs is that LUTs clip any values that are below 0% or above 100%, whereas the colour transforms are able to access and use that data, so it's accessible downstream.
When I'm getting familiar with a camera, or I'm grading shots with a lot of dynamic range I'll often pull the exposure down and see what's in the highlights and pull it up to see what's in the shadows, so that if there's anything relevant then I can grade appropriately.

I spent some time learning more about color management and think I have a better system for color grading in Resolve.
I create two nodes. The first one is an ACES transform and converts the color space from that of the camera into ACEScct, like this:

The other node is also an ACES transform that converts from ACEScct color space to Rec.709 for display on a monitor, like this:

Then I set the timeline color space to ACEScct, thusly:

I then create additional nodes between the node that converts camera color space to ACEScct and the one that converts ACEScct color space to Rec.709 and make all adjustments to those additional nodes. That seems to be a much better way to color grade in Resolve, and the HDR color wheels seem to work much better and more predictably.

I spent some time learning more about color management and think I have a better system for color grading in Resolve.
I create two nodes. The first one is an ACES transform and converts the color space from that of the camera into ACEScct, like this:

The other node is also an ACES transform that converts from ACEScct color space to Rec.709 for display on a monitor, like this:

Then I set the timeline color space to ACEScct, thusly:

I then create additional nodes between the node that converts camera color space to ACEScct and the one that converts ACEScct color space to Rec.709 and make all adjustments to those additional nodes. That seems to be a much better way to color grade in Resolve, and the HDR color wheels seem to work much better and more predictably.

The other thing to mention, beyond what @IronFilm said, is that the thing that matters most for editing is if the codec is ALL-I or IPB.  
To drastically oversimplify, ALL-I codecs store each frame individually, but IPB codecs define most frames as incremental changes to the previous frame, so if you want to know what a frame looks like in an ALL-I codec you just decode that frame, but in an IPB one you have to decode previous frames and then apply the changes to them.  In some cases, the software might have to decode dozens or hundreds of previous frames just to render one frame, so the simple task of cutting to frame X in the next clip is a challenge, and playing footage backwards becomes a nightmare.
Prores is always ALL-I, but h264 and h265 codecs CAN be ALL-I too, but it's not very common.  This is probably the cause of almost all of the performance differences between them.

No worries!
A couple of suggestions beyond learning more about colour management (so that you've got it clear in your head)....
Learn to colour manage using Nodes, rather than using the Resolve settings.
The reason I suggest this is that there are all sorts of cool little tricks you can do in Resolve by transforming to a different colour space, doing something, and then transforming back.  This means that you'll be doing some colour management in the node graph.  However, if you're doing that and also using Resolves colour management menus then your colour management configuration is split between nodes and menus etc and so it can become confusing because you can't see the whole pipeline in one place.
This might be a good start for getting your head around colour management...  This is Cullen Kelly, possibly the most experienced colourist on YT, and this talk is a complete introduction (ie, it's not just a fragment) to the topic:
The other thing is to rate the camera like it's an acquisition device, not from the footage.
What I mean by this is that each camera you're looking at has greater image quality than you will be able to capture, because they're all high-end cameras, so the limitation will be the footage you are able to capture with it.  This comes down to workflow.  
You need to be able to understand how the camera works and how to get the optimal results from it, how to set the camera up optimally, you'll need to get it prepped, get it to the location, carry it, identify good locations while carrying it, set it up including mounting lenses and filters, turning everything on etc, prep the shot by composing / exposing / focusing, and only then hitting record.  
This all sounds obvious, but (to make my point a bit more obvious), if the camera was 100kg/lb then you wouldn't be mobile enough to get it to the best compositions, if you are tired you wouldn't even see the best compositions, if there's a great composition that is time-sensitive (like, something is moving - animals in a field - people walking etc) but it takes a minute to setup the shot then the moment will be gone, etc.
You can only grade the footage you actually record...

Have they ever???
Even when REDs were more popular on production, a few years back, it was still easy enough for producers (especially in big markets such as LA or NYC) to demand the latest. Because there was a big oversupply of RED shooters vs jobs suitable for a RED. 
Their RED Raven and RED Komodo pushed them rather close to consumer territory 
RED even at the best of times never really gained heaps of traction. 
Their market segments were:
1) RED fanboys 
2) cutting edge experimenters, who would dabble with the the RED ecosystem when it was new. Probably got burnt by RED. And would move along to abandon RED as soon as something better was available. Be it a Sony PMW-F3 / Sony FS700 / ARRI ALEXA / or whatever. 
3) people who needed a compact cinema camera , be it for a drone / gimbal / crash cam / whatever
4) people who want "higher quality" but can't afford the best. (i.e. ARRI ALEXA cameras, or Super 35 film, or something similar-ish such as Sony F35 or F65)
#1 has been in decline for years. 
#2 has completely disappeared. 
#3 got very gradually chipped away at with the likes of better mirrorless cameras + BMD's BMCC & BMPCC. But the release of the ARRI Alexa Mini almost completely demolished this niche for RED. Then the P4K / VENICE / FX6 / etc killed whatever small teeny remaining niches RED might still have in this market. 
#4 initially this gap for RED to live in used to be very big. As when the RED ONE was released the ARRI ALEXA didn't exist at the high end, not even the Sony F35 existed yet. And the HDSLRs didn't exist on the low end. So RED had all to themselves a massive huge market between the likes of Panasonic DVX100 etc on the low end and shooting on Super 35mm (or perhaps the Sony PWM-F900R) on the high end (which is VERY expensive!). Maybe RED's most direct competition was Super 16? (it's a middle ground between DVX100 vs S35) So it was easy to make a strong case for RED. 
But within a couple of years things very quickly changed:
ARRI ALEXA & Sony F35 etc got released, which meant the very high end for digital was no longer RED's. 
HDSLRs & HD camcorders such as the Sony EX3 got released so that the low end HD was no longer RED's. 
But as each year went by, it became worse and worse for Sony. 
As quickly you got RED being squeezed and attacked from all directions:
1) HDSLRs / mirrorless got better with 4K and even 10bit, killing even more of the low end market for RED. A filmmaker that in the past might have been happy to financially overstretch themselves to the max to try and get Scarlet-X for their thesis film, is now happy to shoot it on a newly released Panasonic GH4 with an Atomos recorder. 
2) Mainly Blackmagic (but to a lesser extent ZCam/Kinefinity/AJA/etc as well) killed off a lot of appeal for RED in the low end raw/ProRes niche of the market. And even attacking them hard in the mid range once the URSA Mini came out. Plus once the likes of ALEXA XT etc got released, making older ALEXA Classics increasingly more affordable to rent, then that too killed away the mid range for RED> 
3) The low/mid end for slow motion got killed by Sony FS700, and once the Phantom cameras came out they killed the high end for RED. And with time this just got worse and worse for RED, as more and more cameras could do better and better slow motion. 
4) compact cameras (for gimbal / steadicam / crash / cranes / etc) on the high end got killed once the ALEXA Mini was released, and had already been chipped away at by the mirrorless and BMPCC on the lower end
5) the low/mid range for documentaries / corporate / advertising / etc got massively eaten away at with the release of the Canon C300mk1 & C100, and then full on demolished once the Sony FS7 came along, almost no point for using RED at all. 
What was once a big area for RED between S35 level vs DX100 level filmmaking when the RED ONE was released has shrunk now to almost nothing. 
Remember too, that the camera rental is a very small part of an overall budget for a production in many cases. The difference between renting a RED Gemini vs an ARRI Alexa Mini is a rounding error for them. So why choose the RED?? 
And if someone is super strapped for cash, will they want to splurge on renting a RED Gemini or will they be happy to settle for the likes of an URSA Mini Pro or a Sony FX6 or Canon C300mk2 etc? (and probably, these cameras will be even better suited to the nature of this type of filmmaking) 
 
 
Indeed, you might have missed the boat on getting your hands on your dream camera! They're unaffordable now. 
ah right, two totally different sensors
Would make more sense to compare a Epic-X vs Scarlet-X that are both using the same MX sensor. 

I’m quite good at it. Not pro-level, of course, but I’m always able to achieve results that look good to me, and as a hobbyist, that’s what really counts. I currently use s-log2 or 3 on my Sony A6500 and grade in Davinci Resolve Studio. During my camera research, I’ve downloaded lots of sample footage from various cameras and experimented with grading it in Resolve. My favorites, so far are Canon Cinema RAW Lite, v-log, and REDRAW. 

The original one did but the new versioner which you would use with the 12K uses the USB-C port only so no loss of connections.

I linked the pic of the original in error.

We have cameras that are unable to shoot internal RAW literally because of RED. You want to stop animosity against a company that is completely screwing everyone else over and suing people left and right? A company that made it so Blackmagic had no choice but to create their own RAW format and made companies like Panasonic, Sony, and Nikon all have to figure out ways to make raw external instead, which in turn makes the rest of us have to buy expensive external recorders and expensive SSDs? Seriously, no offense man - but you should probably quit telling people what to do and how to treat companies, especially companies that are making our work life more difficult and more expensive. Also, dont forget where you are - this is EOSHD, where the creator of the site is very critical of companies - which in turn pushes them to be better and to quit their bullshit. So in conclusion, please get off your high horse and realize that we shouldn’t bow down to big bad RED and let them push us around with their bullshit patent. And this “animosity” is very much warranted.

Like many hobby-related decisions, this comes down more to what I want rather than what I need. I’ll probably end up spending more money than necessary, but that’s what some hobbies are—money pits.
I could drive to work in an inexpensive economy car, but I prefer to drive something a little more sporty and luxurious, even though both will get me between point A and point B. Same thing with cameras for my hobby work. 😉

It has a USB port for direct recording to SSD or you can go the whole hog and get the URSA Mini Recorder which sits between the camera and the battery to enable you to define your own capacity using 2.5” SSD drives.

It’s not particularly cheap at around $400 but more cost effective than c-fast pretty quickly and a lot more robust than having an external drive hanging off the USB-C port.
 

Minimal, yes, but that's all I really need. I'm not shooting a feature film, so I don't need all the do-dads you see on cameras used for that task. Plus, adding unnecessary stuff increases the weight of the rig.
I have mixed feelings about the RED brand. Back when digital was in its infancy, well before ARRI and others got into the market, RED was a big name and I certainly aspired to own one, but the cost was too high back then. Now that the price of models like the Dragon-X and Komodo are in my grasp, I've been somewhat soured on the RED brand due to their price-gouging on Mini-Mags and other accessories, and their litigious behavior towards other companies using internal RAW recording. The reports of reliability issues is a worry too, since if I get the Dragon-X it's a model that RED has already discontinued and probably won't support much longer (assuming they still do, which might not be the case).
The Varicam sounds interesting, but it seems to use proprietary media (P2 cards) that are expensive ($395 for a 30GB card and $1840 for 512GB!) I'll give that one a pass.
The BMD URSA 12K is still high on my list of possibilities. Some of the things I don't like about it: reliability concerns, non-detachable screen, and use of CFast cards. Likes: BRAW, PL mount, its menus, and built-in ND filters. I'll definitely keep this one on my short list.
ZCam and Kinefinity look like great options with interesting technology. I especially like the media the Kinefinity uses. It's just a shell that holds a common NVMe M.2 SSD that's much cheaper than CFast or even CFexpress cards (4TB for $197). This is what RED Mini-Mags should have been. The thing holding me back here is the relative obscurity of the Chinese companies behind these brands. Will they still be in business a few years from now? Will they service their cameras in the mid to long term? Do repairs require shipping the camera to China? Who knows? 
Panasonic is definitely a possibility, either the S1H or its cubic brother the BS1H. I have fewer qualms about support from a well-established company like Panasonic, assuming, of course, that they don't decide to get out of the camera market altogether! 
I think Canon and Sony still sit on top of my list, with the C300 Mark III, the FX9, and the FX6 being contenders. Of these, I like the C300 best and it checks off more boxes than the Sony's.
Decisions, decisions...