Gregormannschaft

Works great in FCPX. FCPX is actually fantastic to work with on the new Macs. I tend to edit XAVC on it as it seems to handle it the best of any program I've tried. I also use it for quick edits that I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on.
I'm yet to really try out Resolve as an editor, but FCPX is more attuned fir the new Macs than Resolve anyway

The macbook pro from 2014 is still a great machine but Egpu will need Thunderbolt 3 support to work natively when it's released. Until then please, I recommend you test and be patient with FCPX, especially with 10.4 it's going to be even better and after a while, you'll be thinking why you didn't try it before. If you liked Resolve, you'll love FCPX and its lightness.

I have a base model MBP, a couple years old. No problem editing Sony 4K.
Specially since switching to Final Cut. Never going back to Premiere. At work Im forced to but I'm working on changing that.

I have done extensive documentary editing using 4K XAVC-S and GH5 files using FCPX on 2015 and 2017 iMac 27 and 2014, 2015 and 2016 MacBook Pro 15. I used Premiere extensively from CS4 through CS6 and have a Premiere CC subscription but mainly use it for testing.
Obtaining smooth editing performance on 4K K264 is difficult on almost any hardware or software. Unlike Premiere, FCPX uses Intel's Quick Sync acceleration for H264 and is much faster on the same Mac hardware -- yet even FCPX can be sluggish without proxies. Using 1080p proxies, FCPX is lightning fast at 4K on any recent Mac, even a 2013 MacBook Air. However compute-intensive effects such as Neat Video or Imagenomic Portraiture can slow down anything, no matter what the hardware or editing software.
Editing 4K H264 using Premiere on a Mac tends to be CPU-bound, not I/O or GPU bound. You can see this yourself by watching the CPU and I/O with Activity Monitor. iStat Menus ver. 6 also allows monitoring the GPU. The I/O data rate for 4K H264 is not very high, and using proxies it's even lower.  Using I/O optimizations like SSD, RAID, etc, tends to not help because you're already bottlenecked on the CPU. This is a generalization -- if you are editing four-angle multicam off a 5400 rpm USB bus-powered portable drive, then you could be I/O bound.
I have done a lot of back-to-back testing of a 2014 vs 2016 top-spec MBP when editing 4K H264 XAVC-S and GH5 material using FCPX. The 2016 is much faster, although I'm not sure how representative this would be for Premiere. On FCPX my 2017 iMac 27 is about 2x faster than the 2015 iMac (both top spec) when transcoding or exporting H264 from FCPX. I think this is due to the improved Kaby Lake Quick Sync, but am not sure. 
A top-spec 2017 MBP might be considerably faster than your 2014 but this depends a lot on the software. Comparing top-spec configurations, the GPU is about 2x faster but the CPU only modestly faster. It might be enough to compensate while staying on Premiere, especially if your problem was GPU. But I'm suspicious why it's so slow if using 720p proxies. In my testing Premiere was very fast on 4K H264 if using proxies. This makes me think it's Warp stabilizer or some effect slowing it down. Can you reproduce the slowdown without any effects? Without effects does the extreme sluggishness only diminish or does it go away entirely?
Resolve performance has been greatly improved in the latest version and in some benchmarks it's as fast as FCPX. You might want to consider that. FCPX is very good but it's a bigger transition from a conceptual standpoint, whereas Resolve is track-oriented like Premiere is.

I got a 1/4 filter. Which doesn't have a huge effect on people's skin, a slight, very pleasing smoothing effect. Outside, it's also pretty pleasing, really softens the extreme highlights. The only time it's super exaggerated is when you're inside and there's a bright window nearby - then the highlights tend to bloom quite a lot. I like the effect, and it's probably exaggerated on my shots because I'm also using vintage glass. I think kidzrevil is using a slightly different filter with a subtler effect that you might also want to look into.

Either way, whatever you settle on, I think it's a great idea to buy one. I have loved the footage I've gotten since I got one.

I only bought the filter after reading all your posts on here. Has made a HUGE difference. For me it basically simulates the look of higher end productions, improves roll off, tonal graduation. Really top stuff. 
 
You're totally right. There's some macro blocking on the wall behind that's very noticeable if you zoom all the way in. But for a smaller sized project where you want good images on a low budget I think it works well. This was a very small setup.

Nice shots @Gregormannschaft
But this also illustrates the technical problem with s-log + low bitdepth + compression. Skin is really thin on the last image, for example,  and the wall is on the wrong side of the banding limit.

Figure I'd upload a few screengrabs from a recent project using the SLOG2 + SLOG3.cine combo we're talking about here. I used a DeLUT as a starting point to grade - most aren't great but I love Downton Alt. Tends to give very natural colours without doing too many weird things with grain or colour blocking. These were all shot using a Tiffen BlackPro Mist 1/4, which at times was possibly a bit much. But when it works I really love the effect it gives.

 

Figure I'd upload a few screengrabs from a recent project using the SLOG2 + SLOG3.cine combo we're talking about here. I used a DeLUT as a starting point to grade - most aren't great but I love Downton Alt. Tends to give very natural colours without doing too many weird things with grain or colour blocking. These were all shot using a Tiffen BlackPro Mist 1/4, which at times was possibly a bit much. But when it works I really love the effect it gives.

 

Figure I'd upload a few screengrabs from a recent project using the SLOG2 + SLOG3.cine combo we're talking about here. I used a DeLUT as a starting point to grade - most aren't great but I love Downton Alt. Tends to give very natural colours without doing too many weird things with grain or colour blocking. These were all shot using a Tiffen BlackPro Mist 1/4, which at times was possibly a bit much. But when it works I really love the effect it gives.

 

Figure I'd upload a few screengrabs from a recent project using the SLOG2 + SLOG3.cine combo we're talking about here. I used a DeLUT as a starting point to grade - most aren't great but I love Downton Alt. Tends to give very natural colours without doing too many weird things with grain or colour blocking. These were all shot using a Tiffen BlackPro Mist 1/4, which at times was possibly a bit much. But when it works I really love the effect it gives.

 

Figure I'd upload a few screengrabs from a recent project using the SLOG2 + SLOG3.cine combo we're talking about here. I used a DeLUT as a starting point to grade - most aren't great but I love Downton Alt. Tends to give very natural colours without doing too many weird things with grain or colour blocking. These were all shot using a Tiffen BlackPro Mist 1/4, which at times was possibly a bit much. But when it works I really love the effect it gives.

 

I'm also using primarily vintage glass - I find that with 4K you want as much character as possible in the image, even if it's not technically perfect. So I have a few FD lenses, a lovely Zeiss Jena 35mm and the cheapest lens I have which is probably my favourite - a 50mm Zeiss Tessar f2.8 which I picked up for 20 bucks. So that's what I'm working with, and I've found that -3 is probably my limit in terms of in camera sharpening. I eventually settled on -4 as a happy medium for vintage glass. It could be slightly lower on the A6500 but might be worth a shot. Even -5 made a noticeable difference.

Interesting. That "mushy" feeling was exactly what I've always experienced. When I brought it up to about -4, I found a bit of structure was brought back to my images, especially helpful for uploading to YT or Vimeo. But your footage looks really nice, very organic and sharp. Perhaps on the A6500 it's not such a bad thing to have -7, as you're already downsampling 6k footage. On the A7SII you don't have that. 
 
I've also really enjoyed using Geoff's GFILM settings, might be worth a shot trying out for yourself. I'd be curious what you could do with it.

The 24-105 does sound great. I tried the 24-70 GM a few months back and the clarity, sharpness, whatever you want to call it, made a huge difference. If the 24-105 is even close to that it would make sense. Native glass, no metabones problems, smaller size, lighter, actual autofocus. For docs it makes a lot of sense and I'm pretty excited about using it.

A7S / A7R release cycle:
They tend to be 3-6 months apart
A7R1 - October 2013
A7S1 - April 2014

A7R2 - June 2015
A7S2 - October 2015

A7R3 - October 2017
A7S3 - Probably April 2018 (NAB)

The 24-105 does sound great. I tried the 24-70 GM a few months back and the clarity, sharpness, whatever you want to call it, made a huge difference. If the 24-105 is even close to that it would make sense. Native glass, no metabones problems, smaller size, lighter, actual autofocus. For docs it makes a lot of sense and I'm pretty excited about using it.

The 24-105 does sound great. I tried the 24-70 GM a few months back and the clarity, sharpness, whatever you want to call it, made a huge difference. If the 24-105 is even close to that it would make sense. Native glass, no metabones problems, smaller size, lighter, actual autofocus. For docs it makes a lot of sense and I'm pretty excited about using it.

For me the A7rIII is everything that I wished from an A7rII upgrade. These are just the improvements on the video side:
Amazing AF from A9
Sgammut3.cine  
better low light performance
lower rolling shutter
EVF from A9
Better ergonomics 
At least double the battery life
S35/FF switch with a button! 
Bright LCD during 4K recording
USB3.1 tranfers
Dual SD card
Improved FF quality
Improved IBIS
Proxy recording!
Personally I don't think there is any competition for Sony right now. 
 
 
 
 

Interesting. Looks like they're working on making the R primarily for photos again, and hopefully, the SIII will see actual proper improvements for video. Or not, and I have 0 reason to upgrade, which will also make me happy.

No 10bit and oh my god, we're still at a 100Mbps bitrate for 24p/30p 4K?!?!  Goddamn Sony.. throw us a bone for video here.

Oh come on.

If you're really doing medium to high budget video projects, you are most certainly not rocking up on set with a mirrorless camera. Nor is it so easy to justify a switch between the two. The GH5 footage has the potential to be cleaner, sharper, punchier - for sure. But the difference between the two cameras is not night and day, and I'm sure a lot of clients won't be able to spot the difference. This doesn't even take into account glass, or lighting or crew size which have a much larger effect.

Really, you're just perpetuating this camera myth where people like to think a new camera with flashier specs will elevate their projects, and in turn make them feel like they're a better filmmaker by owning the latest piece of gear.

 

Where is "in here"? In Germany a used A7r II will run you upwards of 2000€ and the A7s II is never to be seen on the used market. You'll still pay 2999 € for a new one, considering it came out over 2 years ago. Price development roughly comparable with the Canon 5D III I think.
The times where the Sony prices plummeted like nothing and a new model came every year are obviously over (which is good and bad, depending on perspective).
I'd expect a new A7s III to MSRP around 4000€ in Germany.

That's pretty much the reason I stopped going to the Sony Center kino - it got too much. Yorck Kinos, while smaller, are so much better.

Saw the film last night and really really enjoyed it. The photography is stunning, continues the really good work Deakins has done with Villeneuve over the past couple of films together. Every shot is beautifully put together and it was so refreshing to watch a Hollywood blockbuster taking its time with pacing and mood setting. 

That's pretty much the reason I stopped going to the Sony Center kino - it got too much. Yorck Kinos, while smaller, are so much better.

Saw the film last night and really really enjoyed it. The photography is stunning, continues the really good work Deakins has done with Villeneuve over the past couple of films together. Every shot is beautifully put together and it was so refreshing to watch a Hollywood blockbuster taking its time with pacing and mood setting.