jhnkng

I love shooting black and white, but I don’t get to do much motion in black and white. I did shoot a short a few years ago in black and white: 
 

What is that supposed to mean?

This thread is mostly going no-where, but it's not anyones fault.  It's actually a symptom of how a nodal editor like Resolve works.
Begin PSA
In PP or FCPX a person can ask the question "how much power do I need" and someone else can give an answer that is useful because people use the software in basically the same way.  Sure, you can have layers and multiple tracks of video, but mostly people edit with one shot visible at a time, and PP and FCPX have such limited colour functionality that you would only use a couple of colour effects.
Resolve is different.
Resolve is a nodal editor, which means that you can make an infinite arrangement of adjustments that apply to some or all of the image.  It's a "how long is a piece of string" question.
It's not uncommon for a 'basic' grade in Resolve to include:
Lift/gamma/gain/offset level and tint adjustments (to set black and white points exposure and adjust WB) A luminance vs luminance curves adjustment (adjust contrast and finer adjustments like shadows) A luminance vs saturation curves adjustment (desaturate extreme shadows and highlights) A hue vs saturation curve to take one over-saturated item and make it not be distracting A node adjusting mid-tone detail, maybe contrast, and some levels that has a key to only be applied to skintones An oval qualifier with level adjustment for a vignette adjustment This is without any OFX plugins, LUTs, Colour Space Transforms, etc.
When you think of Resolve as an EDITOR, you can compare it to PP/FCPX in terms of how it works, but when you think of Resolve as a COLOUR GRADING tool, you should compare it to After Effects.  You wouldn't ask "what computer do I need for After Effects" because it depends on what the hell you're using After Effects for - you could be tracking a window or you could be rendering an entire CGI universe.  Grading in Resolve is the same as that - you could be setting WB and contrast or you could be doing a day-for-night transformation.
End PSA ???

I guess it depends on budget, but I've always found that it's better to have as much computer built in as you can afford. More cores are better, particularly for h264 footage, and I'd go with the Vega inside rather than rely on an eGPU system. There are just times where you want to be able to open your laptop to get something done quick without having to plug in the eGPU. If that's not the case, you should just get a desktop which will give you more bang for buck. 
For reference, I edit 4k h264 material in Resolve on a 2016 Macbook Pro (i7 2.9ghz, Radeon Pro 460, 16gb RAM) and it works great. I don't use Fusion, and I don't grade much beyond basic colour correction (curves mostly, the odd power window and tracking) and I rarely have more than 3 video tracks running (and never simultaneously like editing multicam footage). The system you're speccing should be faster than my MBP, so depending on what you actually edit/grade it should be fine. As an aside I've worked with some 6k RedCode footage in Resolve and my MBP was not handling it well. No problems after transcoding to prores, but it was not handling RedCode well.

You want the look of a heavier camera, you need to make the camera heavier. Period. The extra weight/mass is what makes bigger cameras look better handheld. Either you're willing to do it for the look or you're not. There's no way to "fake" inertia.
Gimbals and steadicams will give you steadier footage with a light camera and eliminate micro-jitter, but it's not the same aesthetic at all.
On a recent short, all it took was popping the F3 on a simple shoulder pad, and suddenly beautiful handheld was effortless. I can PM you a link if you're interested.

Awesome, thanks!
 
I had a BMMCC for a while and the battery was completely exposed, so I got used to it :D

There's no space on the door, but the door is easy to take off and there's a latch inside to hold the battery in. This way you can safely use a dummy battery.

No - it should have a MF sensor. FF is not cinematic enough these days.....

I guess it depends where you are, but very few places are completely dark, even at night. Street lights, other house lights, passing cars... even in rural areas moonlight can light a room. I would seriously consider punching a hard light with a CTB gel through a window (as far back from the window as is practical) to mimic that light, exposed at one stop under, and expose for your flashlights maybe a half or a full stop over. 

Sorry but @androidlad  is not totally wrong and your words are a bit disproportioned. While I would not allow myself to say that a "camera can or cannot deserve someone" like he did, I am a bit shocked at the quality of your outputs versus the equipment you have. No offense meant at all just my point of view. 
Good for you that you can spend 45 000$ on 2 camera system, but again what is the point if you get those results (stills you posted above)? You would get the same results (and could get better) with a Canon T2i. I am just a bit shocked.
Anyway, you are totally free to buy what you want and do the pics you want, and I imagine I can also go fuk myself too...
As far as the hardware failure is concerned, I am hopeful for Fuji that it is an isolated case, and sorry to hear it happened to you, it sucks for sure especially twice in a row. Good that you can return them for sure. 
For the canon, at $6000 and 1.5KG it better be reliable!
 

Iphones are made in china，no problems for Apple
The only thing that matter is quality control

Yeah they don't hold back! But if you take their recommendations for the Threadripper and substitute for parts that are closer to your budget you can get to a pretty good place. For example the 16 core 1950X is like $1200 AUD but the 12 core 1920X is $600 AUD -- I'd doubt the 16 core is twice as fast as the 12. Plus the guide has pretty good pointers to stop you from overspending on stuff you don't need, like going to 32gb RAM when they only recommend 16 etc.

I edit off a 1st Gen TouchBar Macbook Pro 15 and I can handle the 4k from my X-H1 ok. But if you're editing h264 material you need CPU cores -- the more the better. Or you transcode / generate optimised media. My advice would be to buy a balanced system -- don't spend all your money on a super fast GPU and not enough on a CPU, don't spend too much on the compute bits and forget about fast storage. If anything get more storage than you think you need -- you can transcode to wring better performance from slower systems, but if you're out of disk space it's a pain in the arse (and incredibly time consuming) to have to juggle and move things around to accommodate.

Blackmagic puts out an official hardware and configuration guide for every version of Resolve, no better advice than from the people who write the software: https://documents.blackmagicdesign.com/DaVinciResolve/20180407-79c607/DaVinci_Resolve_15_Configuration_Guide.pdf

Blackmagic puts out an official hardware and configuration guide for every version of Resolve, no better advice than from the people who write the software: https://documents.blackmagicdesign.com/DaVinciResolve/20180407-79c607/DaVinci_Resolve_15_Configuration_Guide.pdf

Exactly this. Zero to hero is a huge understatement here. I've been using Fuji cameras for photography almost exclusively for the last 3+ years and have been an X-Photographer for the last two and a half. "Video with Fuji" was comedy material 3 years ago. Now that I have slowly transitioned (or, to be more precise, returned to my situation 6-7 years ago) into doing 80%+ video work, Fuji has managed becoming a prominent player in the video field. I have the X-T3 sitting on my desk as I write this and I literally can't believe what they've accomplished in such a short time.
True, there are several things that need polishing and a "proper" heavily video-centric X-H2 is still in the cards. But in my mind they have proven their commitment to this field. IMO they have to look into expanding and/or coming up with newer versions of their lenses that are more appropriate for video work. I have great hopes for the upcoming 16-80mm for example, since this could be an excellent run-and-gun lens with a future camera featuring IBIS especially. An external sound module or, even better, specialized multi-function interface/power add-on (see Panasonic DMW-YAGH) is also in order, I believe. 

Excellent, so you can show us some work then? Which I'm sure we won't harshly and unfairly rip into with no thought to context or the conditions you worked under.

Excellent, so you can show us some work then? Which I'm sure we won't harshly and unfairly rip into with no thought to context or the conditions you worked under.

Let's not forget that the sensor in the GFX50s/r made its debut in 2014 in Phase One and Hasselblad backs. Not to mention there's significantly more money and resources in the development of APS-C and Full Frame sensors, since they sell much much more of them.

Formats larger than 35mm has always been a niche market. You buy medium format because you like the look and you're willing to give up a lot of practicality for it. Also, less DoF isn't the reason you have a more three dimensional image -- it's the transition between focus and out of focus. It's the way you can get separation between subject and background but not reduce the background to a big blurry smear. 

Yeah what is the deal with that guy? The other day he resurrected an old thread just to rip into a young wedding videographer he found on youtube over the most minor and unimportant details, talked up his career, told a few people to kiss his arse and promptly disappeared. I know retirement is boring but surely he has more camera tests he can make in all his spare time?

I assume you think you are one of these $10k level photographers?
Seems odd that you waste your days being bitchy on a forum and filming test footage with early teen children.
This thread was a really nice one until you arrived, just professionals discussing craft. Like many other threads beforehand, you've filled it with your brand of negativity.

I was on set last week watching the camera op pull off beautiful dolly shots with an Amira off an EasyRig. It still takes a practiced hand but you couldn't do that with a lighter camera.

Excellent, so you can show us some work then? Which I'm sure we won't harshly and unfairly rip into with no thought to context or the conditions you worked under.

Oh, i heard, that's why the earlier statements about moving the bride/groom and what not seemed even strange. If you've done wedding shots, you know the pressure. You are fully entitled to your opinion on her work, but I personally think, if you have worked in that industry, you should cut her some slack.

Excellent, so you can show us some work then? Which I'm sure we won't harshly and unfairly rip into with no thought to context or the conditions you worked under.

...did we watch the same video? I skipped to the last few minutes just to watch her work and to see her footage, which I thought looked great -- I mean it's a wedding, you don't have the luxury of a gaffer truck and crew. She was confident in her instruction, she knew her gear and moved fast to get the maximum number of shots in a short space of time. There was a couple of shots where the background was a bit hot, but mate who cares about the background?!? Her exposure was on her couple! As it should be!

Your criticism makes me wonder if you've ever shot a wedding before, because it's a high pressure environment where you work with people you don't cast and barely know and you're at the mercy of someone else's schedule and the weather. You're on your feet all day and constantly worried about making sure you've covered everything that's happening and with enough variety for the edit, and keeping tabs on battery life and card space and where you've left your camera bag. If I had a second they'd be busy getting a second angle, not holding a reflector. Not entirely sure how you expect to see any diffusion -- to diffuse full sun for two people walking they'd be under a 20' x 12' at least, and then you'd have to worry about shadows on the ground and the wind blowing the damn thing over.

As a wedding photographer (who have also shot a few wedding highlight films) I'd be more than happy to work with her on a wedding. Definitely better than some that I've had to work with. My only criticism would be that she's simply not charging enough if she has to work 80 weddings a year, that is an express train to burnout town.