Regarding 10-bit and 422: cameras today are like computers, and the features are like software. 10-bit and 422 (and RGB 444) are all upsell items. If one wants those features (software), Canon charges extra for them. It's ultimately psychology and marketing. People are more willing to pay more for hardware vs. software in a camera system (except perhaps at the high end (Sony, ARRI etc.) where expensive software features are add-ons).
As a software / image-processing guy, I've done tons of work with codecs and comparing 420 (1/4 color), 422 (1/2 color), 444 YUV (all color in a slightly lossy color space), and 444 RGB (all color, lossless color). If not doing green screen, massive color post work, fast motion, or needing every last drop of DR (e.g outdoors, inside with untreated window in shot), 420 8-bit IPB capture is plenty good for online distribution of content (remember the C100). Because 420 8-bit IPB (H.264, someday H.265 and 10-bit (HDR)) is the online streaming standard. And thus one generation of recompression isn't a big deal in most cases. The C200 can do 10-bit 422 1080p externally, and of course compressed RAW internally. I think if Canon updated the stock/default picture styles to look better for skin tones, folks would be more satisfied with 8-bit 420 vs. needing to use 12-bit RAW (and the comparatively massive file sizes).
I've shot Red RAW and 14-bit Canon 5D ML RAW, both look amazing, and RAW would be useful when shooting a feature. For most of the shorter stuff many shoot (including me), compressed formats are fine. Shooting 12-bit RGB 444 1080p with Filmic Skin on the C300 II provides great skin tones, straight from the camera with little or no post work needed, and relatively small files: only 225Mbps (ALL-I)!
And if you put the 12-bit RGB 444 into a 4K sequence and sharpen it, you've got "4K" footage that most won't be able tell was shot in HD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sor8c7igbFQ
I've tested it and the 1080p => 4K (+sharpen) footage full screen looks vastly superior to 1080p uploads on YouTube, especially on > 1080p displays.
You could do the same with 10-bit 422 1080p recorded externally with the C200. Try comparing such footage to RAW 4K on the C200- you might be surprised.
Regarding C300 II 4K60: the only reason I could see for Canon not enabling 4K60 is thermal. Data rates can be kept similar if CFast 2 limitations (more compression), the fan could be force on for 4K60 (currently an option to turn off fan during recording), and recording could stop on overheat. While Canon might rightly figure this is not an ideal user experience, Sony users have dealt with it for years on the A7 series of cameras. So a paid upgrade with a disclaimer might satisfy folks wanting 4K60. However if Canon has a new 4K60 camera coming soon, marketing reasons will eliminate this option. I purchased a 1DX II to get 4K60 (and upgraded the 5DIII for stills).
So C300 II users could try the upscale to 4K post sharpen method for 4K60- most people won't be able to tell the difference. Perhaps have a demo ready to convince customers that you can deliver acceptable 4K60 footage. I was even able to upscale soft 1080p 1DX II footage to 4K and most people couldn't tell the difference vs. 4K native: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIw1CpYKk0c
As a software / image-processing guy, I've done tons of work with codecs and comparing 420 (1/4 color), 422 (1/2 color), 444 YUV (all color in a slightly lossy color space), and 444 RGB (all color, lossless color). If not doing green screen, massive color post work, fast motion, or needing every last drop of DR (e.g outdoors, inside with untreated window in shot), 420 8-bit IPB capture is plenty good for online distribution of content (remember the C100). Because 420 8-bit IPB (H.264, someday H.265 and 10-bit (HDR)) is the online streaming standard. And thus one generation of recompression isn't a big deal in most cases. The C200 can do 10-bit 422 1080p externally, and of course compressed RAW internally. I think if Canon updated the stock/default picture styles to look better for skin tones, folks would be more satisfied with 8-bit 420 vs. needing to use 12-bit RAW (and the comparatively massive file sizes).
I've shot Red RAW and 14-bit Canon 5D ML RAW, both look amazing, and RAW would be useful when shooting a feature. For most of the shorter stuff many shoot (including me), compressed formats are fine. Shooting 12-bit RGB 444 1080p with Filmic Skin on the C300 II provides great skin tones, straight from the camera with little or no post work needed, and relatively small files: only 225Mbps (ALL-I)!
And if you put the 12-bit RGB 444 into a 4K sequence and sharpen it, you've got "4K" footage that most won't be able tell was shot in HD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sor8c7igbFQ
You could do the same with 10-bit 422 1080p recorded externally with the C200. Try comparing such footage to RAW 4K on the C200- you might be surprised.
Regarding C300 II 4K60: the only reason I could see for Canon not enabling 4K60 is thermal. Data rates can be kept similar if CFast 2 limitations (more compression), the fan could be force on for 4K60 (currently an option to turn off fan during recording), and recording could stop on overheat. While Canon might rightly figure this is not an ideal user experience, Sony users have dealt with it for years on the A7 series of cameras. So a paid upgrade with a disclaimer might satisfy folks wanting 4K60. However if Canon has a new 4K60 camera coming soon, marketing reasons will eliminate this option. I purchased a 1DX II to get 4K60 (and upgraded the 5DIII for stills).
So C300 II users could try the upscale to 4K post sharpen method for 4K60- most people won't be able to tell the difference. Perhaps have a demo ready to convince customers that you can deliver acceptable 4K60 footage. I was even able to upscale soft 1080p 1DX II footage to 4K and most people couldn't tell the difference vs. 4K native: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIw1CpYKk0c
