Rather positive review (even if it helps having a Shogun...) but the question is: Was this a pre-production model? The NR performance is something I've heard has been improved in production..
4:2:2 is supposed to give you higher quality when grading, and it's often a requirement for broadcast work. With the GH4, RX10, A7S and A7R II, you need an external recorder to get 4:2:2. XC10 records 4:2:2 internally both in 4k and Full HD.
Even if the RX10 II seems tempting, the question is how cinematic its S-log2 will be compared to the C-Log of of XC10. What will be interesting is to compare the low-light capabilities: XC10 can do ISO 20000 and RX10 II can do ISO 25600 in extended mode.
A7R II with a 10x Sony 24-240 lens is $4200, about twice the price of XC10, so not really comparable. Sony PXW-X70 is closest in price, but the cheaper RX10 II is closer in form factor.
Let's see what the XC10 can do in low-light before judging. The Canon LOG and Wide DR are both nice and the Canon look is a must if you need to edit it together with C100/C300 footage, but if it's worse than the AX100 or PXW-X70 at high ISO/db, it won't cut it for my needs. And no, I won't compare it to the cheaper 4k bridge cameras, they're all excellent travelling companions on holidays but they have low bit-rate codecs, low light is pretty bad and they're all missing some features.
Come on, it's a portable 4k camcorder with a very useful ISO range and LP-E6 batteries, ready to use. Why doesn't anyone complain about the Ursa Mini using CFAST cards only (none included), no batteries (not even a battery plate) and no EVF included in the price?