maxotics

DPAF only covers a small portion of the sensor from what I understand. I'm not sure I would bother with it. But get the external recorder. (Although the AVCHD is surprisingly great.)
There's no slow motion. That might bother you. The lack of 4k will make it a non-starter for some. The viewfinder is garbage.
Otherwise I think this is a fantastic camera. I prefer the image to FAR more expensive cameras. Great color and tonality. But the image is hampered by a sensor that likes underexposure (or ACTUALLY rating it at 800 ISO and only using Log C, which has an awkward implementation of super white data) and a codec that likes overexposure, hurting the would-be pretty good dynamic range and can-be excellent lowlight by muddying the shadows.
With an external recorder and careful metering, you can get past this. And it's only an issue in challenging circumstances. The form factor is great. 

To be honest I am not watching most of Max's videos, Caleb's though, I like this guy and has a more "scientific" approach to things (at least a self-taught-improvisation-scientific approach). He seems to spend more time in his videos than Max. Also, I am using those mics in NX1, GH5, so cameras with ok pre amps (NX is surprisingly quite ok for recordings).
Another note, the Micro is a cardioid mic. I much prefer such kind of mic for camera placement than a directional one, for a lot of reasons. For once, there is no lobe at the back of the microphone, so it will record just in front of it. Second, if you have a wide lens hand held, and go in front of someone, or two people speaking, you can have the conversation easily, and that is what you should aim, when you have 2 people speaking, if you are outside a tattoo shop in Brooklyn, and you go 200mm with your L lens, directionality doesn't mean a thing. Go 35mm, and go close, have someone else do the B camera with a tele lens (usually directors with no real experience do a lot of such mistakes). The atmosphere sound is more natural. Highly directive mics should be on a boom, really, with someone experienced do the work. Now, where my second proposal stands, the MKE440. The 440 is a stereo mic, but unlike Rode's stereo mics, that gather sound from everywhere, and I wouldn't recommend those on a camera, the 440 makes a cone (a sound gathering one) in front of the 2 mics forming the V shape, so you have a much bigger area covered, but still, because you have 2 directional capsules, more directional than cardioid, you have a lot of rejection of unwanted territory, in my opinion, the best of both worlds. The 440's cone resembles a 35mm lens by the way (officially, by Sennheiser engineers).
1 test): Look how small is the difference in gain (first measurement) between Micro vs all the rest, until the Video MicroPro (0db), that seems that we are not gaining much, until the +20db option of the much more expensive Pro, that means that Micro circuitry and amplification is quite good for such a small, light and cheap mic (cheap goes with everything, it is a standard that everything measures on).
2 test): This is what I meant before that Max was a bit exaggerating about the Micro (and, that is only a spec, I was talking also about tonality, musicality and other sound characteristics that are not objectively measured). Self noise is the holy grail of microphones, a small difference can bring huge differences in price, especially in our line of work. Here it is like the sensor on cameras (not always the case though), bigger microphone capsules, usually have less self noise. That is very important if you have a "whispering" actor, or if you are trying to do some good "room tone", or ambient recording. This is where super expensive Sennheiser mics (in Europe, they are 20% more expensive than US, for some reason! damn Sennheiser!) such as the 80X0 and X0 series shine, or good/expensive stereo mics perform the best. The cheapest of that second category is another Rode, the Stereo Video Mic X https://www.amazon.com/Rode-SVMX-Videomic-Broadcast-grade-Microphone/dp/B00O5B3KCU/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1511806267&sr=1-3&keywords=rode+mic+x with its half inch capsules (mind you, there are such mics with 1" capsules), and check that price please. Andrew here has a blog about this specific mic. Search on this site.
3 test): That doesn't say much, usually you cut the low end on the camera, or on a recorder. The most important thing is voice, and voice doesn't live down there, except if you are Nick Cave, but Nick Cave knows his s%^# about mics. Also, all the rumbling and low frequencies are more easily to ruin your sound than high ones (very low frequencies are transferred through materials, that is why you hear the train on the rails coming from miles away, or the low bass of racer boys, or a machine through a concrete building), that is usually we cut down low frequencies, especially if there is no sound man present, you just trying  to survive sonically without a proper pro doing the job, you do not try to gather stellar sound, there is no way, just to stay on the surface.
4) Another reason old Canon sucks! My impression is Samsung has the best ones but I haven't test all the cameras, and when I do camera work, I am not that careful on sound, imagine people with not a lot of experience in sound, they do not even hear most of the times.
I like Caleb, he is trying, effortlessly!

@Mark Romero 2
Do not get me wrong, Rode has very good and competitive products, but in most cases they are a notch under what I would like, and usually I found it in Sennheiser products. I have and own other brands too, but in certain market gaps that Sennheiser doesn't have a product, or they are more expensive that I would like, or have the budget for. A great mic is the NTG3, I used it a lot for a few documentary series (because most of the production companies over here own a couple of those), but every time I was going back to my 416, I knew which one was better (at least for me, the NTG3 is a more forgiving microphone). My impression right now, is that the best, cheap, mic(s) for dSLR and mirrorless, right now, is the Sennheiser MKH440, it does more sense in 95% of the uses it is intended to. When I want the absolute cheapest, smallest, lightest, with not a lot of drain in battery, then I go to the micro. It is just brilliant that they built something like this. A) Micro B) 440 C) independent sound recording with pro mics and recorders, those are my user cases. As Max said, it doesn't get in your way. You can see through your EVF, it doesn't really add to the weight, it ain't so "phallic" and aggressive as others, and it is dead cheap! You can find it for even less, including the fur, and the Rycote Lyre system.
EDIT: also it has the best design among all this Rode video mic series, and it doesn't need to turn it on/off, I have seen myriad times other Rode video mics to be off, when they should be on, and off, when they should be off!
The rest of them are notoriously badly ergonomically built. Especially before the Rode adopted the Rycote Lyre system, they were a disaster to work with. Very bad battery placement, the rubber bands were silly and very bad implemented.
I do not agree with some of Max's opinions though, the micro AIN'T that good acoustically and musically, if you like, most of the other microphones were a good bit better than that, the price difference isn't unsubstantial but for all the aforementioned, and the price, it is the best.
 

AFAIK, the biggest difference is the Videomicro isn't powered and doesn't work with the Canon C100 btw.  However, I use it on every other camera and it's quite the nifty mic. 

He did an unsolicited episode on my vlogging mirror for Sony cameras.   Like me, he felt that a feature holding Sony cameras back from the vlogging mainstream is the non fully-articulating LCD screen.  I've sold around 5 vlogging mirrors which I sell below cost.  I believe there are two reasons for the lack of interest.  1.) Many people have fantasies about becoming a successful filmmaker and the latest/shiny/expensive equipment is what gets them dreamy-eyed, not some gadget made in some guy's garage (or hackspace).   2.) The Panasonic cameras have benefits beyond articulating screens; seemingly endless battery life and crisp 4K.   3.) The desire to vlog does NOT EQUAL a desire for camera equipment (quite the opposite probably).  Anyway, I enjoy Caleb's scripted pieces but also find the streaming episodes too slow.
On his studio setup I'd quibble about a couple of things.  First, his mixer combines all the inputs into a 2-channel USB stream.  Perfect for live-streaming, but of limited use for studio stuff because you're not recording separate non-processed feeds for each device.  Also, the setup is fine for a talking head, but isn't as flexible for other things.  He did a review of the Odyssey, where he switched between different cameras--great video!  The device cost $3,000 though.  
There just isn't enough time in the day to do an equipments shows AND go out and shoot short films.  It must be very frustrating for him.  There are only so many pieces you can do about lights, cameras, lenses and doodads before wondering what the heck it has to do with story-telling.      
Here's my current vlogging setup.  Now that I have it working well, technically, there is just the problem of my stiff presentation   Anyway, if you have USB3.0 on your laptop/computer, that Cam Link is nice device.  
 

I saw that...and was about to buy it. But looked at the reviews and decided, I rather spend $200-300  more and buy a GX85 or something. The reviews were not only bad, but made the camera seem not that useful at all. 
Then I went to the manufacturers website and it looks like they have completely shifted their focus doing VR cameras. Which means there will be no additional firmware improvements and I'll be left with a $200 junk. I rather spend $500 and have something like the GX85, I think. 

It’s my understanding that the 3.5K  Raw from the 5D3 isn’t a hundred percent refined yet, so for paid interviews it may not be your best bet, but I would have no problem using the 1080p Raw for paid gigs.
I’m in the middle of shooting a short film in 1080p ML Raw and I couldn’t be happier. I’d take it over any consumer 4K any day of the week.
With that being said, I am one of the few fans of the 5D4’s 4K on this site... I think it looks absolutely stunning and the Touch AF seems magical.
But unless I had a client that asked for 4K, I would just shoot 1080p ML Raw. But since I am a hobbyist that shoots zero budget films... well working on my first zero budget film, I don’t have clients to answer to.
Another thought would be a 1DC. In my opinion it is the best 4K image out there. The 5D4 is similar with the great AF, but the 1DC has that unquantifiable “mojo” I hear people talk about. But so does ML Raw.
Hope that helps, but after rereading it... it may not have...

Just be careful you're not too close without a pop guard, as then you might get busts of wind while speaking. 

Which is what happened during the video OP shared. And was thus very annoying while I was listening to it, each time it happened. 

After too many hours I came to @IronFilm's conclusion.  Get the mic close to you lips.  Speak fully and stay below 0db and you're good.  Anything else, and audio goes south in a hurry!  What BLEW ME AWAY is how difficult it is to get good levels through your MIC on Windows.  I ended up downloading shareware/freeware from here http://www.darkwooddesigns.co.uk/pc2/meters.html
And the camera makers.  WTF x 1000!  Why don't they have a feature where, like white balance, you have the subject talk and have the camera analyze the sound and set the a value at 0db, or wherever you tell it to set max db.   Or allow different gains for each channel. UNBELIEVABLE.  Fck, rant coming on
Setting levels on all cameras stinks!  I'm with sondreg, headphones can't be trusted. And why can't Panasonic have a way to integrate smart phone audio with the clip, or any of them.  We're still in the dark ages of audio recording when it comes to these cameras--even the professional ones.
@jonpais I'll go where you're polite to go.  Hey filmmakers, if you can't set audio in a low-budget vlog then check your fame-and-fortune delusions at the door  
 

I'll additionally note, his microphone is only a few inches away from his lips!

Closer is better!

On YouTube Mattias is a simple man who loves his cameras and dog.  Might be a wife or girlfriend there too.  On this forum, he's just another raving lunatic   Cracks me up!  We all need a place to let our lunacy run free.  Thank you Andrew   Anyway, I'm running out of cameras to try.  I want to sell most of them but each camera has a "thing".  The C100 perfect video in any light.  The 7D shoots raw.  The A6300 does 4K and let me run it all day through the USB.  Have an a6000 too. The EOS-M3 (a recent edition) has a pop up LCD, mic in, and is small.  The X3000 is really portable and has great stabilization.  The GR--love poem there.  A nikon D80--might want for my copy stand.  An A7R, for real estate and portraits.  However, I'd LOVE an D850.  I'd love a Leica.  I want every camera Mattias talks about.  
A point.  I lose some money on each camera I sell.  It's the cost of my lunatic hobby.  I estimate that it costs me $1,200 to $2,400 a year.  It's part of my photo hobby.  If I was a full-on professional photographer, however, it would be bad business.  Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses.  None is the clear-cut best.  So it's time wasted figuring it out when it would be better time learning how to deal with camera X's limitations.  Or just spending time preparing to take better photos. 
I hate myself when I spend time on this forum.  But here I am      Where were we...?

On YouTube Mattias is a simple man who loves his cameras and dog.  Might be a wife or girlfriend there too.  On this forum, he's just another raving lunatic   Cracks me up!  We all need a place to let our lunacy run free.  Thank you Andrew   Anyway, I'm running out of cameras to try.  I want to sell most of them but each camera has a "thing".  The C100 perfect video in any light.  The 7D shoots raw.  The A6300 does 4K and let me run it all day through the USB.  Have an a6000 too. The EOS-M3 (a recent edition) has a pop up LCD, mic in, and is small.  The X3000 is really portable and has great stabilization.  The GR--love poem there.  A nikon D80--might want for my copy stand.  An A7R, for real estate and portraits.  However, I'd LOVE an D850.  I'd love a Leica.  I want every camera Mattias talks about.  
A point.  I lose some money on each camera I sell.  It's the cost of my lunatic hobby.  I estimate that it costs me $1,200 to $2,400 a year.  It's part of my photo hobby.  If I was a full-on professional photographer, however, it would be bad business.  Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses.  None is the clear-cut best.  So it's time wasted figuring it out when it would be better time learning how to deal with camera X's limitations.  Or just spending time preparing to take better photos. 
I hate myself when I spend time on this forum.  But here I am      Where were we...?

On YouTube Mattias is a simple man who loves his cameras and dog.  Might be a wife or girlfriend there too.  On this forum, he's just another raving lunatic   Cracks me up!  We all need a place to let our lunacy run free.  Thank you Andrew   Anyway, I'm running out of cameras to try.  I want to sell most of them but each camera has a "thing".  The C100 perfect video in any light.  The 7D shoots raw.  The A6300 does 4K and let me run it all day through the USB.  Have an a6000 too. The EOS-M3 (a recent edition) has a pop up LCD, mic in, and is small.  The X3000 is really portable and has great stabilization.  The GR--love poem there.  A nikon D80--might want for my copy stand.  An A7R, for real estate and portraits.  However, I'd LOVE an D850.  I'd love a Leica.  I want every camera Mattias talks about.  
A point.  I lose some money on each camera I sell.  It's the cost of my lunatic hobby.  I estimate that it costs me $1,200 to $2,400 a year.  It's part of my photo hobby.  If I was a full-on professional photographer, however, it would be bad business.  Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses.  None is the clear-cut best.  So it's time wasted figuring it out when it would be better time learning how to deal with camera X's limitations.  Or just spending time preparing to take better photos. 
I hate myself when I spend time on this forum.  But here I am      Where were we...?

On YouTube Mattias is a simple man who loves his cameras and dog.  Might be a wife or girlfriend there too.  On this forum, he's just another raving lunatic   Cracks me up!  We all need a place to let our lunacy run free.  Thank you Andrew   Anyway, I'm running out of cameras to try.  I want to sell most of them but each camera has a "thing".  The C100 perfect video in any light.  The 7D shoots raw.  The A6300 does 4K and let me run it all day through the USB.  Have an a6000 too. The EOS-M3 (a recent edition) has a pop up LCD, mic in, and is small.  The X3000 is really portable and has great stabilization.  The GR--love poem there.  A nikon D80--might want for my copy stand.  An A7R, for real estate and portraits.  However, I'd LOVE an D850.  I'd love a Leica.  I want every camera Mattias talks about.  
A point.  I lose some money on each camera I sell.  It's the cost of my lunatic hobby.  I estimate that it costs me $1,200 to $2,400 a year.  It's part of my photo hobby.  If I was a full-on professional photographer, however, it would be bad business.  Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses.  None is the clear-cut best.  So it's time wasted figuring it out when it would be better time learning how to deal with camera X's limitations.  Or just spending time preparing to take better photos. 
I hate myself when I spend time on this forum.  But here I am      Where were we...?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I use my A7s as my main photography camera too and I disagree with just about everyone of those points.
Focus point-   is that really an issue?   I hit the centre button to get up the focus area, hit it again to get the focus point (I usually use small flexible spot) and use the four way buttons to move it where I want.     Very simple and easy and I find it easier to use than the Canon 7D was.    If two quick presses of a button right where your thumb is takes too long you can always change it to one press by setting the centre button to focus settings instead.
There is a LOT in the menus and to me they are well placed (though I don't have to go into the menus very often when out and about with the camera).
Inability to map important functions?     Not all buttons can be set to all functions but geez there is more that can be set than most cameras and while it is true you can not set silent shutter to any button,  is there a list of cameras that CAN (it will be a short list)?     Is silent shutter something that NEEDS to be set rapidly?    I have only used it a few times in more than three years and it is still fairly quick to set if you are familiar with the menus (it is very useful though when needed).   
Looking further, the control wheel can be set to 4 things, custom buttons 1, 2 and 3, centre button, AEL and AF/MF buttons to well over 50 things each, left, right and down buttons to 44 things each, and if you use a lens like the FE 85 1.8 you get even more customization with the focus hold button being able to be set to over 50 things too.
The camera is not built to the same level as more expensive Pro DSLRs but it is as robust as any other that I have used/owned other than early film SLRs.
It is not a weather sealed camera but is a bit better than being completely unsealed (and besides many of my lenses are not sealed anyway including my most expensive Canon L).
Battery life is an issue for some but I am still using the original batteries I got with it as well as an even older one from the A7 I had earlier and even after four years of constant use I still only needed one battery to shoot a couple of bands Saturday night at different venues with around 300 photos and well over 60% left.     I take a couple with me in case but most of the time, one is enough for a days photo shooting.        I just make sure and charge my batteries after use.         For video, yes, I would want all three of my batteries for a gig but I only record the odd song or two.
Jpegs and colours, again is subjective but I don't seen any huge difference to any other camera system I have used (which is most of them).
 The "issues" with the camera as I see it are not so much problems as limits- IE not a camera for tracking or fast AFC and if you need more than 12mp but it never was meant to be.
If you applied the same logic to many other cameras that don't have many of the things as an A7s you could say just about any camera is not much good.
 
 

On YouTube Mattias is a simple man who loves his cameras and dog.  Might be a wife or girlfriend there too.  On this forum, he's just another raving lunatic   Cracks me up!  We all need a place to let our lunacy run free.  Thank you Andrew   Anyway, I'm running out of cameras to try.  I want to sell most of them but each camera has a "thing".  The C100 perfect video in any light.  The 7D shoots raw.  The A6300 does 4K and let me run it all day through the USB.  Have an a6000 too. The EOS-M3 (a recent edition) has a pop up LCD, mic in, and is small.  The X3000 is really portable and has great stabilization.  The GR--love poem there.  A nikon D80--might want for my copy stand.  An A7R, for real estate and portraits.  However, I'd LOVE an D850.  I'd love a Leica.  I want every camera Mattias talks about.  
A point.  I lose some money on each camera I sell.  It's the cost of my lunatic hobby.  I estimate that it costs me $1,200 to $2,400 a year.  It's part of my photo hobby.  If I was a full-on professional photographer, however, it would be bad business.  Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses.  None is the clear-cut best.  So it's time wasted figuring it out when it would be better time learning how to deal with camera X's limitations.  Or just spending time preparing to take better photos. 
I hate myself when I spend time on this forum.  But here I am      Where were we...?

With the Canon 5D3 you can shoot Magic Lantern RAW and blow all the Sonys away   You can also shoot serviceable H.264

Thanks for the tips - but we're all different, shooting different things in different scenarios for different purposes and a different audience. 
On this most recent shoot, the A6500 + Zhiyun Crane was a huge, huge asset. 
The fact that you can now use tools like this instead of rigged up, expensive stuff and get professional level results (with operator skill) can't be underestimated. 

I've shot extensively with both, IMO when shooting video IBIS is vastly superior at stabilizing the image and reducing the micro jitters when shooting handheld. Plus the 5d4 file sizes, ugh. Though I would love DPAF on my a7rII, its not worth the mjpeg files for me.
So shoot Cine 4/2 which has been shown in tests to have the same DR than slog, its just distributed in a different way and you don't have to overexpose then pull down highlights.

I wasn't aware there was any doubt, in anyone's mind, that HDR technology is buggy, in the real world   I also can't believe anyone on this forum would doubt that you shot what you said you shot.  They're just reporting what they see. I mean, even in this late, mature state of PHOTOGRAPHY one can print/view someone else's JPG that will look all F'd up!  Even using color calibration systems I have found them to create unsuspecting problems in software that doesn't recognize them.
So don't get down, Mark!  I'm looking forward to looking at your stuff when I have HDR equipment.

It's a taste thing, right, trading color saturation for greater dynamic range.  We certainly wouldn't want HDR if it did that because people who favor saturation over DR would then be left with inferior images.  We need both.  When I say "saturation" (and maybe someone can give me a better term) I mean the amount of color information we need to discern all colors within the display gamut.  Banding is the clearest example of what I mean.  As I mentioned elsewhere, if you display, say 20 colors (saturation) of yellow on an 8-bit, 6DR gamut display, you will see banding, because your eye can tell the difference.  Here are some examples I created.  
The first is all 255 shades of green an 8bit image, which should render "bandless" on a 6DR screen

I can already see some banding, which tells me that the website might re-compresses images at a lower bit-depth.
Here's a version where 18% of the colors are removed, let's call it 7-bit

And now for 32% removed, call it 6-bit

The less colors (saturation information) there is, the more our eye/brains detect a difference in the scene.  HOWEVER, what the above examples show is that we don't really need even 8bits to get good images out of our current display gamuts.  Most people probably wouldn't notice the difference if we were standardized on 6bit video. But that's a whole other story   
How does this relate to HDR?  The more you shrink the gamut (more contrast-y) the less difference you see between the colors, right?  In a very high contrast scene, a sky will just appear solid blue of one color.  It's as we increase the gamut that we can see the gradations of blue.   That is, there must always be enough bit-depth to fill the maximum gamut.  
For HDR to work for me, and you it sounds like (I believe we have the same tastes), it needs the bit-depth to keep up with the expansion in gamut.  So doing some quick stupid math (someone can fix I hope), let's say that for every stop of DR we need 42 shades of any given color (255/6 DR).  That's what we have in 8bit currently, I believe.  Therefore, every extra stop of DR will require 297 (255+42) shades in each color channel, or 297*297*297 = 26,198,073.  
In 10bits, we can represent 1,024 shades, so roughly, 10-bit should give us another 24 stops of DR; that is, with 10bit, we should be able to show "bandless" color on a screen with 14 (even 20+) stops of DR.
What I think it comes down to is better video is not a matter of improved bit-depth (10bit), or CODECs, etc., it's a matter of display technology.  I suspect that when one sees good HDR it's not the video tech that's giving a better image, it's just the display's ability to show deeper blacks, or more subtle DR.  That's why I believe someone's comment about the GH5 being plenty good enough to make HDR makes sense (though I'd extend it to most cameras).  
Anyway, I hope this articulates what I mean about color saturation.  The other thing I must point out, that though I've argued that 10bit is suitable for HDR theoretically, I still believe one needs RAW source material to get a good image in non-studio environments.
And finally, to answer the OP.  I don't believe you need any special equipment for future HDR content.  You, don't even need a full 8bits to render watchable video today.  My guess is that any 8bit video graded to an HDR gamut will look just fine to 95% of the public.  They may be able to notice the improvement in DR even though they're losing color information because again, in video, we seldom look at gradient skies.  For my tastes, however, I will probably complain  because LOG will still look like crap to me, even in HDR, in many situations   10bit?  Well, we'll just have to see!
 

The new version of LR (not LR Classic) REQUIRES you to save your photos to the cloud. There is no option to not use it. In fact there is an option available to turn off saving to the local drive.
It's also incredibly dumbed down at the moment; for example there's no curves tool.

I doubt that will happen.  Indeed, with their current pricing it seems Adobe will provide a $10/month PS/Lightroom app forever (because a lot of people simply can't pay that $50/month).  Adobe can't afford to give the competitors unfettered access to beginning photographers.  As it is, there already are a lot of great alternatives.  If all Adobe offered was PS or LIghtroom for $10/month I think no one would bat an eye. 
It's the jump to other products that makes people feel abused.  I believe that's the case with the OP because as others have pointed out, there's no real reason not to keep with Lightroom when you compare it one on one with other products.  I had PS for a year or two, $10, then wanted Premiere.  To add it on was another $20/month.  I flipped my lid.  Talking to Adobe on the phone further aggravated that.  It took me months to calm down enough to bite the bullet.  I even CANCELLED PS for a few months.  So I COMPLETELY understand where the OP is coming from.

I agree that if you are a professional, sucking it up is the norm. Irritating as hell, but true. 
As buggy and slow Adobe programs are, the are very powerful compared to the competition and we pay for it. Other programs really need to step up their game if they want a piece of the money cake that Adobe keeps enjoying. 
What annoys me most with the Adobe suite is that you cannot easily move to another program. I would say that it is even harder than switching OS. I have so many projects in Premiere, or thousands of pictures with edits in Lightroom that I will not be able to go back to. Even though in reality I might do that for maybe 1% of those, that feeling keeps me from dropping Adobe. 
For example, Capture One is a good alternative to Lightroom, but it is even more expensive so I am not feeling ready to jump the ship just yet. 

Adobe's pricing is irritating.  You can pay $10/month for Photoshop, then an additional $20/month for something else meaning it makes more sense to buy the full CC for $50 a month.  So one is between $120/year or $600/yr.  I went the full CC, but have a client pay some of it.  
If you do any amount of professional photo or video work I suggest just sucking it up (as most of us do) and pay for the full CC.  A friend of mine's Dad calls it "just pay the freight".  If you were just starting out, yeah, maybe look at all the alternatives, but you already have time invested.  Anyway, money aside, the value of the full CC suite is quite good--I must say.  Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's one nice dinner a month with friends and I'd rather spend the money alone with my photos and Photoshop   
There are so many economies of scale, so many great tutorials on CC that will save me time versus other products.  Competition is good.  I'd buy other software if I need it.  For core stuff though, PS is the software to use.  The CC suite is quite comprehensive.  I did some podcasts for friends and Audition worked real well so CC felt like a bargain to me.
A few months ago I was really annoyed at Premiere's new "Essential Graphics".  Now that I've figured it out I'm really happy with it.  Adobe keeps innovating.  CC DOES keep getting better.   Tough decision.  For me I decide based on how much photo/video I do every day.  As long as I keep doing it every week, and they keep adding functionality, I'll keep paying.  When I don't or they don't, I won't.