tokyojerry

Thanks much for your feedback Andrew on this just announced M6-Mark-II.  I was about to get rid of my existing (and very humble) Olympus E-M10 Mark-III and 'upgrade' to this M6 Mark-III as my first foray into the Canon world.  I thought, double the megapixels, a larger sensor (m4/3 vs APS-C) DPAF vs CDAF only, etc.  But now, your insightfulness has created pause to rethink matters.  Now, I am thinking to either wait for the upcoming Olympus E-M5 Mark-III and stick with M4/3, or to  go full frame and consider A7-III et el,  Or perhaps I should venture into the Fuji camp and consider X-T3/X-T30, albeit no IBIS (I think) and also owning no Fuji lenses.  I tend to shy away from full frame because of the  added weight, size, and expense for lenses, and at this point in life (age) I really like the relative compactness of the current Olympus or this new M6-Mark-II.  I like the ergonomics and control layout of the Olympus but the menu system is another story!. But size alone is surely not the only factor.  Perhaps the all around compromise might be the Fuji X-T3 / X-T30 but again, no lenses.   Alternatively, just wait and see what Olympus produces with the upcoming E-M5-Mark III.   It is rumored to minimally have the capable sensor of the current E-M1-MKII but with new processor.   Anyway, again, thanks for the heads up info on the shortcomings of the M6 Mark-II 4K specifications  not being true 4K.  It's definitely food-for-thought.  Sheesh!  Even my Samsung Galaxy Note 9 gives me 4K @ 60fps!  ... decisions, decisions, confusion!   (^J^)

I’d hold off on canon apsc as their sensors are technically smaller than Sony and Fuji apsc so the size difference between it and what you have isn’t really that huge. Especially once the canon crops in (if it does in 4K) 
i imagine even a speed booster on ur current body would generate better imagery  

@tokyojerry if you already have Olympus gear I would at least wait for the EM5-III. Should be a decent upgrade and you won’t have to buy new glass. The new Sony Axxxx cameras are new numbers and that’s about all. The rolling shutter in 4K is absolutely dreadful. 

Thanks much for your feedback Andrew on this just announced M6-Mark-II.  I was about to get rid of my existing (and very humble) Olympus E-M10 Mark-III and 'upgrade' to this M6 Mark-III as my first foray into the Canon world.  I thought, double the megapixels, a larger sensor (m4/3 vs APS-C) DPAF vs CDAF only, etc.  But now, your insightfulness has created pause to rethink matters.  Now, I am thinking to either wait for the upcoming Olympus E-M5 Mark-III and stick with M4/3, or to  go full frame and consider A7-III et el,  Or perhaps I should venture into the Fuji camp and consider X-T3/X-T30, albeit no IBIS (I think) and also owning no Fuji lenses.  I tend to shy away from full frame because of the  added weight, size, and expense for lenses, and at this point in life (age) I really like the relative compactness of the current Olympus or this new M6-Mark-II.  I like the ergonomics and control layout of the Olympus but the menu system is another story!. But size alone is surely not the only factor.  Perhaps the all around compromise might be the Fuji X-T3 / X-T30 but again, no lenses.   Alternatively, just wait and see what Olympus produces with the upcoming E-M5-Mark III.   It is rumored to minimally have the capable sensor of the current E-M1-MKII but with new processor.   Anyway, again, thanks for the heads up info on the shortcomings of the M6 Mark-II 4K specifications  not being true 4K.  It's definitely food-for-thought.  Sheesh!  Even my Samsung Galaxy Note 9 gives me 4K @ 60fps!  ... decisions, decisions, confusion!   (^J^)

As an a6300/a73 owner I don't give two shits about the new a6x00's, especially the "flagship" with the old sensor and same video specs. $1400 gets you a Z6, which outside of AF and photo FPS speeds, is superior in every way. The only way Sony gets my cash to upgrade the a6300 is the XT3's sensor and 10-bit/4k60p, but its obvious that's not happening in the next 2-3 years until the next gen bodies are released. Been tempted by the XT3, but I mostly use AF and I don't want to carry two sets of lenses, so I'm still in the Sony camp for now.
But I'm also in the camp that doesn't expect the a7s3 to be anything close to the S1H, IMO it gets a new sensor - Andriodlad says the quad bayer is coming - and the new AF system, with 10-bit HDMI only to keep it out of FS5 territory. I've done a lot of work in TV and doc's, its split between C1/300's and FS5/7's in my neck of the woods. Everyone shooting commercials I've worked with is on Canon or Red except one company that uses a FS7. I can't imagine Sony letting the a7s3 run into FS territory the way Panasonic just created a FF mashup of the EVA and GH5 in the S1H. Sony is going more conservative with every new camera.
Chris

Camera companies have an enormous capacity for pain. Olympus's camera division last made a profit in 2009. BTW, Leica was on the verge of bankruptcy in 2004.
I rather suspect that Sony sees its losses in cameras as a marketing expense for its sensors....

Just because you don't understand my point doesn't mean that others live in a dream world. Sony has lost so much money on their camera business over the last year's that it's gonna take a long time to recover.
You are talking about Sony as a whole and yes they make a lot of money. So do Panasonic. But it's not from cameras. Same with Fuji whos reports show its basically Instax film making the money in the photo segment, not the XT3.
But we have been down this boring road before where we argue about the same thing. A few talk about camera sales and others about cameras + water heaters. The numbers don't add up and instead of communication it's attacks and baiting. Then someone calls me an idiot and you explain that you are old and therefore right by default
So I will end it there.
All I say is read the financial reports and be critical. They to are written for marketing reasons. Don't just eat the propaganda. Ask why cameras are lumped with TVs in one company but separated at others? Ask why Sony lumps it with video cameras etc? Ask why some put them under "other"? And ask if you think they would show huge profits from a segment if they could, would share holders care?

Well I will agree this new BM is not for everyone that is for damn sure. It is not going to be a speed camera, or probably one you take on a trip of a lifetime. But this is a gift from heaven. This is a miracle and the price, I just can't believe it. It is most peoples dream camera on here, at least it is mine. This thing just made my Sony A7s look very Damn Old.  And it is a killer camera.
And for me it is 995. I was going to buy the full blown Resolve anyways even before this came out.

as of right now h265 doesnt make much sense to use for professional work. you use codecs like this one and like h264 to get the best quality/size ratio. this makes sense for your final version you want to share with people. well, sharing something that almost nobody can play isnt really helping is it?
 
im really looking forward to x265 and when h265 enters the scene. but for now stick with h264 when sharing videos.
 
its not rocketscience. on a mac use handbrake with the quality option enabled. most people still use bitrate. why? you should only use bitrate if you directly want to control the size of your video file, but most often you dont care about the exacty size. you want it to look good. i hate people saying that they just use a bitrate of 4000 for 720p. it always looks good. fact is, for a concert video or a sporting event 4000 might be not enough for reasonsable quality. for a locked shot or timelapse 4000 might be overkill. its not that easy to determine. just go with the quality option if thats what you care about.
 
crf24 = youtube quality, crf22 = good quality, crf20 = very good quality, crf18 = to go all out.
 
i wouldnt recommend using lower crf values than 18. you cant see the difference. i have a eye for detail and most often can see a difference between 20 and 18. so using crf18 already gives you a nice safety bump, if you might wanna use the file to create other formats out of it.
 
on windows use staxrip. its one of the few reasons i still miss windows. its the best encoding software for h264 by a long shot. handbrake works well  but the interface is illogocally structured.

Pricing is pretty competitive for full frame cameras. 1499 euro for the A7 and 2099 for the A7R.
 
I think the decision hinges on which camera you use for stills and video at the moment.
 
If you're a Blackmagic user you will like the practicality of the A7R and RX10 but it isn't a step forward in terms of the image, only in terms of the lensing and sensor size.
 
That full frame look CAN be special, but you might miss that 10bit and 13 stops dynamic range more. The choice is yours.
 
The A7R may well replace your stills camera. The 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 have a dwindling amount of advantages, namely the AF system and their lens ranges. If you're into MF like a Leica user and haven't invested in 20 L lenses the Sony will easily replace your full frame DSLR. Easily.

I thought that the choice was between a Hackintosh & a used Mac Pro & I would plump for the latter. However if the budget is higher then a new top of the range iMac will give you outstanding performance & with Applecare worry free computing for years. 

Although Xeon processors have a bigger cache, which makes them faster at some tasks, their biggest advantage is that they allow for more ram. But these days I think 32GB of RAM is plenty for editing video.

@Jens, thanks for that tip.  I never thought of doing an external, outside the mac mini for graphics solution.  In fact, I did not such solutions even existed.  I will look into this as a viable option.  I just don't want to 'buy in' to Apple's Mac Pro.  (never did).  Apple pays too little attention to machine.  And besides,  they are exorbitantly over-priced.    But, I think the Nvidia Cuda is being recommended as the (only?) solution for dealing with Resolve and raw video.  But, if one is not concerned about raw video and just doing ordinary video editting in FCP-X, I imagine the MacMini configuration I specified earlier on up in this thread should suffice to do efficient production.

I think the grafik power of the mac mini is the grafic card...
 
Did anyone ever use an external Grafic - Card from Matrox?? There are several external boxes ... http://www.voelkner.de/products/203186/Grafikkarte-Matrox-TripleHead2Go-DisplayPort-Edition.html?WT.mc_id=googlebase&utm_source=google&utm_medium=base&utm_campaign=C42905

We use FCPX and recently edited Red Raw with our 13" MacBook Pro with 4GB of RAM.  We recently upped the memory to 16GB in that machine from www.MacSales.com.  My point being that pure power is not necessarily needed if you are using FCPX.
 
Granted many old school editors hate FCPX but I personally think it is the future.  I was a hater of FCPX before but have grown to love it.
 
Just something to consider.  For a $1100 real Mac with FCPX, you could be editing raw.