rdouthit

I understand YMMV, but I shoot 4K video regularly with both the A7III and A7RIII trackside, where it is often 120° ambient and I have yet to even received a heat warning. I think most reports of overheating are from folks that don’t know to enable high heat operation. 
I’ve had plenty overheating problems with previous models (NEX7, A7RII, A7SII, A99II all overheated horribly), but these current ones are so reliable I don’t even keep them out of the sun between shoots anymore. I let them bake and they don’t even flinch.
The attached video is me shooting for Subaru with the A7III mounted to a Ronin shooting 4K internal after the camera sat in direct sun for an hour (I was shooting with the R3 on sticks leading up to this) in 100°+ weather.   
In addition to shots like this, I also conducted several 20+ minute interviews in similar conditions without issue. 

DD0F6B36-C445-4648-831E-3F8C84D0DFB8.mp4

I understand YMMV, but I shoot 4K video regularly with both the A7III and A7RIII trackside, where it is often 120° ambient and I have yet to even received a heat warning. I think most reports of overheating are from folks that don’t know to enable high heat operation. 
I’ve had plenty overheating problems with previous models (NEX7, A7RII, A7SII, A99II all overheated horribly), but these current ones are so reliable I don’t even keep them out of the sun between shoots anymore. I let them bake and they don’t even flinch.
The attached video is me shooting for Subaru with the A7III mounted to a Ronin shooting 4K internal after the camera sat in direct sun for an hour (I was shooting with the R3 on sticks leading up to this) in 100°+ weather.   
In addition to shots like this, I also conducted several 20+ minute interviews in similar conditions without issue. 

DD0F6B36-C445-4648-831E-3F8C84D0DFB8.mp4

We moved the shop to Resolve 14 (with networked workstations) this year. Definitely looking forward to 15 exiting beta as there's some really exciting stuff in there (We're going to wait for at least one service release before moving up, though. It took at least 2 before 14 was solid.)

In the last year Vimeo has moved a lot of their focus to business use (white-label and Sony Ci-like video proofing) which will not be counted since they're on private pages. In addition, most video is viewed in Apps (mobile) and increasingly on TVs. As such, their public numbers will likely decline even if their viewership increases. Alexa is a poor measure in this area. I think Vimeo's move towards business is a good one. We dropped Ci and are now paying Vimeo more than $1000/year for proofing and video hosting for our TV apps (multiple accounts). There's a lot more money to be had for them here than in hosting personal passion projects. 

I've been a production partner on Youtube since 2006, back when they had human content curators and we had to sign paper docs to be part of the program. The problem is that an algorithm can't see "quality" it can only see data. Since Google is all about the algorithms they are unequipped to help viewers find the quality content that is/was being posted to their service. The human curators were great. I could tell them that we had an exclusive review of a new car (one that might not even have a lot of search requests yet) and they would put it front and center. Most of our videos trended on the platform as a result. Once they were replaced, that ended and I stopped seeing YouTube as a reliable platform for distribution. Ideally, YouTube would incorporate a mix of content; Some, algorithm based, with section editors that could curate key sections: automotive, film, drama, comedy, etc. However, that is directly against the Google-way, which is unfortunate. 

I've been a production partner on Youtube since 2006, back when they had human content curators and we had to sign paper docs to be part of the program. The problem is that an algorithm can't see "quality" it can only see data. Since Google is all about the algorithms they are unequipped to help viewers find the quality content that is/was being posted to their service. The human curators were great. I could tell them that we had an exclusive review of a new car (one that might not even have a lot of search requests yet) and they would put it front and center. Most of our videos trended on the platform as a result. Once they were replaced, that ended and I stopped seeing YouTube as a reliable platform for distribution. Ideally, YouTube would incorporate a mix of content; Some, algorithm based, with section editors that could curate key sections: automotive, film, drama, comedy, etc. However, that is directly against the Google-way, which is unfortunate. 

I've been a production partner on Youtube since 2006, back when they had human content curators and we had to sign paper docs to be part of the program. The problem is that an algorithm can't see "quality" it can only see data. Since Google is all about the algorithms they are unequipped to help viewers find the quality content that is/was being posted to their service. The human curators were great. I could tell them that we had an exclusive review of a new car (one that might not even have a lot of search requests yet) and they would put it front and center. Most of our videos trended on the platform as a result. Once they were replaced, that ended and I stopped seeing YouTube as a reliable platform for distribution. Ideally, YouTube would incorporate a mix of content; Some, algorithm based, with section editors that could curate key sections: automotive, film, drama, comedy, etc. However, that is directly against the Google-way, which is unfortunate. 

I've been a production partner on Youtube since 2006, back when they had human content curators and we had to sign paper docs to be part of the program. The problem is that an algorithm can't see "quality" it can only see data. Since Google is all about the algorithms they are unequipped to help viewers find the quality content that is/was being posted to their service. The human curators were great. I could tell them that we had an exclusive review of a new car (one that might not even have a lot of search requests yet) and they would put it front and center. Most of our videos trended on the platform as a result. Once they were replaced, that ended and I stopped seeing YouTube as a reliable platform for distribution. Ideally, YouTube would incorporate a mix of content; Some, algorithm based, with section editors that could curate key sections: automotive, film, drama, comedy, etc. However, that is directly against the Google-way, which is unfortunate. 

I've been a production partner on Youtube since 2006, back when they had human content curators and we had to sign paper docs to be part of the program. The problem is that an algorithm can't see "quality" it can only see data. Since Google is all about the algorithms they are unequipped to help viewers find the quality content that is/was being posted to their service. The human curators were great. I could tell them that we had an exclusive review of a new car (one that might not even have a lot of search requests yet) and they would put it front and center. Most of our videos trended on the platform as a result. Once they were replaced, that ended and I stopped seeing YouTube as a reliable platform for distribution. Ideally, YouTube would incorporate a mix of content; Some, algorithm based, with section editors that could curate key sections: automotive, film, drama, comedy, etc. However, that is directly against the Google-way, which is unfortunate. 

I've been a production partner on Youtube since 2006, back when they had human content curators and we had to sign paper docs to be part of the program. The problem is that an algorithm can't see "quality" it can only see data. Since Google is all about the algorithms they are unequipped to help viewers find the quality content that is/was being posted to their service. The human curators were great. I could tell them that we had an exclusive review of a new car (one that might not even have a lot of search requests yet) and they would put it front and center. Most of our videos trended on the platform as a result. Once they were replaced, that ended and I stopped seeing YouTube as a reliable platform for distribution. Ideally, YouTube would incorporate a mix of content; Some, algorithm based, with section editors that could curate key sections: automotive, film, drama, comedy, etc. However, that is directly against the Google-way, which is unfortunate. 

Since the algorithm is secret, and it was updated recently, it's impossible to know exactly the answer to this. However, if I was personally launching a new channel I wouldn't even consider less than two new uploads a week, each with a runtime of no less than 3.5 minutes. 

Frequency and viewer retention.
Correct. To really "work" YouTube she should plan to do regular VLOG, BTS or some other relevant, regularly-scheduled uploads to the channel. Over time it will "raise all ships" in her channel. I gave the same advice to a producer a couple years ago. He stuck to it and now has more than a million subscribers on YouTube and a full time staff. I don't do this myself even though I have a channel, since I make the bulk of my money producing for other channels.

Frequency and viewer retention.
Correct. To really "work" YouTube she should plan to do regular VLOG, BTS or some other relevant, regularly-scheduled uploads to the channel. Over time it will "raise all ships" in her channel. I gave the same advice to a producer a couple years ago. He stuck to it and now has more than a million subscribers on YouTube and a full time staff. I don't do this myself even though I have a channel, since I make the bulk of my money producing for other channels.

I shot two channels to the A7SII today. Worked great. The A7SII can optionally power the receiver as well. (Though you'll want to run a battery grip for that since it sucks more juice.)

I own a video production company that specializes in automotive. We have a string of long-term clients in retail as well as editorial.
Here's one of the shows we shoot for Motor Trend:
Our (my) gear purchases usually revolve around solving problems: better slow-motion, more mobile, faster lenses to address low-light, better mounts for a specific rig shot, drones because... well, drones are awesome (I went out and got my FAA part 107 certification). Though I like new tech, I don't buy something unless it addresses a specific need.

I own a video production company that specializes in automotive. We have a string of long-term clients in retail as well as editorial.
Here's one of the shows we shoot for Motor Trend:
Our (my) gear purchases usually revolve around solving problems: better slow-motion, more mobile, faster lenses to address low-light, better mounts for a specific rig shot, drones because... well, drones are awesome (I went out and got my FAA part 107 certification). Though I like new tech, I don't buy something unless it addresses a specific need.

I haven't needed it on the A7SII yet, but I shot this a couple months ago with the A99II, the dual-channel receiver and two transmitters. (The interview portion, not the intro.)
 

I own a video production company that specializes in automotive. We have a string of long-term clients in retail as well as editorial.
Here's one of the shows we shoot for Motor Trend:
Our (my) gear purchases usually revolve around solving problems: better slow-motion, more mobile, faster lenses to address low-light, better mounts for a specific rig shot, drones because... well, drones are awesome (I went out and got my FAA part 107 certification). Though I like new tech, I don't buy something unless it addresses a specific need.

I own a video production company that specializes in automotive. We have a string of long-term clients in retail as well as editorial.
Here's one of the shows we shoot for Motor Trend:
Our (my) gear purchases usually revolve around solving problems: better slow-motion, more mobile, faster lenses to address low-light, better mounts for a specific rig shot, drones because... well, drones are awesome (I went out and got my FAA part 107 certification). Though I like new tech, I don't buy something unless it addresses a specific need.

I own a video production company that specializes in automotive. We have a string of long-term clients in retail as well as editorial.
Here's one of the shows we shoot for Motor Trend:
Our (my) gear purchases usually revolve around solving problems: better slow-motion, more mobile, faster lenses to address low-light, better mounts for a specific rig shot, drones because... well, drones are awesome (I went out and got my FAA part 107 certification). Though I like new tech, I don't buy something unless it addresses a specific need.

Yes. Any extended use in warm weather (actually, doesn't even have to be that hot) will cause it to overheat when shooting 4k video. The battery grip "fix" isn't really a thing. Some report it as helping, but I doubt the accuracy of their findings. It's never fixed any of my Sonys that overheat. (Even my A7SII on the latest firmware will overheat when shooting in direct sun, and that's with a grip.)
I shot with an A99II for several months. Loved it. But the overheating was becoming more of an issue as we're heading into the summer months. (Worked great in Norway though!) Tip: the A99II (and actually all new Sony cameras) can use the dual-channel wireless receiver on the hot shoe.

I should mention... if you like the ZA 85mm, the 135mm f/1.8 will blow you away. 
Last post on this for now... but for a run-and-gun lens the Sony A-Mount 16-50 f/2.8 is a brilliant piece to work with in APS-C mode on the A99M2. Physically connected focus ring, weather sealed and a very nice image for less than $1000 brand new. Way less on eBay. 

Yesterday, I filmed part of a project with the Sony A7SII in Cine4.cine, which we use every day. I also produced many of the same shots using a new Sony A9 (standard color) that Sony sent us to evaluate (yay for Sony Pro Services). This was done in about 77º weather (f) and both cameras were in direct sun the whole time. No indications of overheating by either camera. 
You'll note a slight crop in the A9 image as its sensor is slightly smaller than the A7SIIs. Also, out of the box, the A9s skin tones are quite nice though highlight roll-off is pretty harsh given the lack of cinegammas. 
 

Yesterday, I filmed part of a project with the Sony A7SII in Cine4.cine, which we use every day. I also produced many of the same shots using a new Sony A9 (standard color) that Sony sent us to evaluate (yay for Sony Pro Services). This was done in about 77º weather (f) and both cameras were in direct sun the whole time. No indications of overheating by either camera. 
You'll note a slight crop in the A9 image as its sensor is slightly smaller than the A7SIIs. Also, out of the box, the A9s skin tones are quite nice though highlight roll-off is pretty harsh given the lack of cinegammas. 
 

I use the Sony 16-50 f/2.8 a-mount on my FS7 almost every day. It's a fantastic lens (when I don't want to use my Sony Zeiss primes.) It's weather sealed, has decent optics and smooth manual focus when you want it (and fast SSM focusing when you don't.) Such a good value, I bought it twice (destroyed the first one shooting a few years of the US rally series... among other things.) It will require a LEA-series adaptor. Get the one without the focus system (LEA3), and it will use the better system built into the 6500.
I previously owned the Zeiss 16-70 E-Mount (APS-C) and that was actually a pretty good lens. It runs about $1k (which is a bit over priced, imho.) It did have a tad too much distortion for me, however, and the manual focus feel was way too numb. Nice sharpness and it should have super-fast AF for photos on the 6500.