URSA Mini Pro?

[DPStewart]

I've shot with the C300 ii and the Ursa Mini 4.6k / Pro, and dynamic range felt similiar between the two. I believe the C200 is similar to the C300 ii in that regard. I'd say that if you thought you might make use of the Canon autofocus (which is lovely by the way) or were going to have some low light stuff, the C200 would be a no brainer over the Ursa Mini Pro. I haven't personally shot with the EVA1. Honestly, all three should be fine for cinema or FX work, but I'd say the C200 and UMP are more geared since they can shoot RAW.

If you have a skilled colorist and are shooting raw, that image wise you should be able to get whatever look you want out of either camera. If you don't have a skilled colorist (or are coloring yourself), then use whatever camera you think will get you the closest look you are going for without too much work. For instance, I found that it was always super easy to get Red Dragon footage (especially with the IPP2 workflow) to a place that I liked, whereas I always had to wrestle with Ursa Mini colors. A lot of people love the stock Blackmagic color science though. I find the stock Ursa Mini 4.6k lut to be awful to work with, so I usually color space transform into log c or red IPP2 and work from there.

To speak to this:
In my experience, no camera's footage is more "good to go right out of the box" than the Canon 5D and C100/C200/C300.
If I absolutely had to turn over some footage that I knew was going to be used "as shot", then I would want Canon every time.

[Taikonaut]

I find the stock Ursa Mini 4.6k lut to be awful to work with, so I usually color space transform into log c or red IPP2 and work from there.

The Rec 709 video lut that came with Ursa Mini 4.6k is for live broadcast not for cinema work. I still get people using the Rec 709 video lut and think the Mini 4.6k is not up to the job as a cinema camera.
I recommend Kholi's Luts, I've not yet seen any C200 footage that rivals that in terms of DR.