Asmundma

I've been using resolve on and office the last 6 months - I definitely think it's better than Premiere (which I find to feel a bit ancient in terms of it's usability and UI). 
I saw in your post you haven't tried FCPX in a few years.... do you know the version available today is much much much better now? Give it a whirl!
I like the way Resolve is evolving and some of the features are unique (grading, audio editing, CDNG), however because I find FCPX so much faster and enjoyable to edit with (like the Magnetic Timeline 2) - when I edit wth Resolve I really miss the modern fluidity you get with FCPX. 
Resolve really needs more plugin support from third parties, plus a few cool tricks on timeline editing to challenge FCPX's "scary at first, but really awesome new way of editing". 
That said, Blackmagic are probably the most interesting and exciting video/film industry product company in the world right now. Top job. 

Dose not look to good too me. A7s2 footage would look much nicer in darker screens.

Exactly. Also:
Many seem to mix up the words professional and high end. An Alexa or a 20.000 Dollar cine lens don't support autofocus. Does the camera operator therefore have the camera always sitting on a tripod or on his shoulder? - because these were the only modes that allowed him to focus manually? 
Hardly. Take a closer look at any modern film (cinema, TV/PPP-series). If you look at them shot by shot, you'll realize that there's a big percentage of steadicam shots, for which someone else has to pull the focus.
One has to do with the other. The higher the resolution, the smaller the pixels (particularly if the video image is downsampled from even more megapixels) and the shallower the DoF due to bigger sensors, the less acceptable is the good old hyperfocal distance, which allowed - through short focal length in combination with smaller aperture - a fixed-focus and point-and-shoot solution. With 4k viewed on 4k displays, we've all become pixel peepers. 
For a low end user (and no professional) like me this means that a lot of shots I dreamed about in the past became possible now that gimbals and good AF are available and affordable.
... and will be nothing special anymore. People will have to learn to hold off. Forbid themselves "narrative pans" (like in the opening of Rear Windows), bragging with pointless sequence shots or overuse of focus transitions (which should be really rare and well motivated). 
That said, I never was a big tripod fan. I'm glad that there are IBIS and OIS. And gimbals. And AF. And miniature field recorders. Better lowlight. Spare me a lot of expensive and heavy rig junk. 
The argument that pros don't use AF doesn't impress me. I shrug. So what?
 

"Pulsing" in AF mode is an old Pana problem, facing FZ1000 and new models too (as the FZ2000). The only way to sail around this AF flaw (continuous AF) is to lock and use the area mode (I told this @jonpais in this forum some times though...). When using a Pana in area mode (subject within a fixed AF area), there is no much pulsing/micro-hunting forth and back (microadjustments of the faulty AF).
Take a look at the "successful" AF video of PhotoJoseph...Full of visible and abyssmal pulsing forth and back in the background. Look at the video of Peter Gregg...Again the pulsing when focusing on the remote of his TV...Hehe, this is a "P&P"-camera - permanently pulsing and pumping...
It's simply a shame to blame users by saying, they can not handle it. Same users do well with Canons DPAF and with Sony's standard settings. No need to go to a university to use AF. It's simply a barefaced claim of fanboys & paid henchmen, who simply don't want to accept the truth. BTW: I use more Pana cameras, but AF on them is simply BS...far away from current standards...By "tweaking" you can get it to work in some situations...Continuous AF for professional use has to be reliable, that's why many DOPs rent the C300 mII...
The AF ist not a great strength of the GH5...But as many Pana fanboys claim, AF is only for pussies... 

And so it escalates.
 

gh5 has a CDAF system... it will always be inferior from any PDAF system.
Thats the only truth !

True CLog uses a log gamma curve using low-level camera data so maximum dynamic range and highlights can be preserved. A picture profile doesn't have access to the low-level data, so true log is not possible, and thus there is no actual increase in dynamic range. Boosting the shadows with the gamma curve in a picture profile can do bad things to skintones, which shouldn't happen with true CLog. A log-like picture profile might be helpful in high dynamic range shots such as outdoors by boosting the shadows before compression and Highlight Tone Priority to help with the highlights. Would test skintones in this case before an important shoot.

Strange post, it hard to know what you really mean as it's polluted by references to conspiration theories. Not sure all Media is corrupt, never the less Trump has manipulated too many. The underlaying problem is lack of good education in US for a long period (for at lot of people), resulting in lack of good judgement. In Europe we see parallels to what happen in Germany in the 30ies, its is a really dangerous situation. Yesterday it was fantastic to see people finally showed engagement.
What do I mean by conspiration theories; that NWO elite has funded ISIS -  of course this is rubbish. A very simple thing- some people use religion to manipulate people which has been going on for ever, and they are local, not initiated by the Westen elite. 

Strange post, it hard to know what you really mean as it's polluted by references to conspiration theories. Not sure all Media is corrupt, never the less Trump has manipulated too many. The underlaying problem is lack of good education in US for a long period (for at lot of people), resulting in lack of good judgement. In Europe we see parallels to what happen in Germany in the 30ies, its is a really dangerous situation. Yesterday it was fantastic to see people finally showed engagement.
What do I mean by conspiration theories; that NWO elite has funded ISIS -  of course this is rubbish. A very simple thing- some people use religion to manipulate people which has been going on for ever, and they are local, not initiated by the Westen elite. 

Strange post, it hard to know what you really mean as it's polluted by references to conspiration theories. Not sure all Media is corrupt, never the less Trump has manipulated too many. The underlaying problem is lack of good education in US for a long period (for at lot of people), resulting in lack of good judgement. In Europe we see parallels to what happen in Germany in the 30ies, its is a really dangerous situation. Yesterday it was fantastic to see people finally showed engagement.
What do I mean by conspiration theories; that NWO elite has funded ISIS -  of course this is rubbish. A very simple thing- some people use religion to manipulate people which has been going on for ever, and they are local, not initiated by the Westen elite. 

Hi 
Have both cameras. The sharpness is more or less equal, maybe an edge in S35 mode on A7R2. Obviously both cameras have their strength and weaknesses.
I run some test : Resolution : 
 
For me the colours are nice on the 1dx2 : handheld with the 70-200 lense. 
 

Hi all, I shot this in Jordan a month or so ago with a Sony A7sii and a Zhiyun crane. I used two lenses, the Sony 28mm f2 and the Canon Fd 50mm f1.4. We also had permission from the Jordanian gov to use a Phantom 4 while we were there. Would love to answer any questions and if you would like to follow along on Fb and on youtube that would be great, thanks!
youtube.com/channel/UCw0J_iNkme1qf2Q1nucVxJA
facebook.com/joshuamorinfilm
Edit: it's showing up a bit weird. Here is the link: https://www.facebook.com/matadornetwork/videos/10154847045404394/
 

OK, people voted for him because they just LOVE racism.
Joking aside, I think our western society is verging on having a dangerous love affair with celebrity and consumerism.
That's why, when a well known blogger insults your favourite camera brand, people flip out.
People need to realise that it's ok to disagree.
I was watching the US election closely and know exactly what happened. Trump won due to a depressed voter turn out for Clinton and a wave of popular support in the rust belt states from mainly working class white voters who felt left behind and distrustful of the mainstream media to give them objective information. So they sourced their information from a Facebook echo chamber instead and from fake news articles, all the while believing Clinton was corrupt and Trump as a 'successful' businessman = the answer to the US's economic problems. If anything it is they who are painfully oversimplifying the world and politics, not me. And it is the same with cameras. I can give you my opinions, and the facts, but people already have their own conspiracies of information from the pro-Sony or pro-Canon echo-chambers online, and it is becoming increasingly hard to put good information out there in the face of such indifference. Click-bate and heavily biased camera review sites would not exist if the audience wanted for better, or knew any differently, and it is the same with Trump.

Although there's fake news on both sides of the political spectrum, I found in the UK during Brexit that there were a far greater number of people accusing the BBC and our prime minister of scaremongering, than the number of people reading fake articles... That's the bigger problem. People no longer trust the mainstream media and government, even when they are telling the truth.
Now all the scare mongering turned out to be right and the pound is worth the same as 1 monopoly note.

Let's have it out!!!
Following on from Ed's thread about Trump here are my thoughts:
1.
How's this for cruel irony - Both Trump supporters on the far right and Bernie supporters on the socialist left believe the same thing. That Hilary Clinton and Tony Blair are war criminals responsible for massive civilian death tolls in the middle east and the rise of ISIS. Actually the war started because of dictatorships there and were escalated under two US presidents both with the name Bush, furthered by decades of repression and poverty in places like Afghanistan. If anything Obama and Clinton tried to deescalate it from the Bush eras. Much as I love him, Bernie depressed the turn out for Hilary Clinton more than anyone else. His wide support is the primary reason Trump is in power, ready to join forces with Putin and accelerate the bombing of civilians in Syria. Young liberals eat up paranoid conspiracy thoeires and fake news just as much as those on the far right because we're living in a highly partisan post-fact virtual world where the truth is too complicated for a Facebook headline.
2.
There is nothing wrong with democracy and here's why. The majority of people are now politically ignorant. They cannot be bothered with it. Therefore it follows they should get a president of the United States who is equally as politically ignorant. Look at this from the New Yorker magazine - "A voter with more knowledge of politics will, on balance, be less eager to go to war, less punitive about crime, more tolerant on social issues, less accepting of government control of the economy, and more willing to accept taxes in order to reduce the federal deficit. Voters ignorant of economics will tend to be more pessimistic, more suspicious of market competition and rises in productivity, and more wary of foreign trade and immigration"... Which camp do you think Trump and his voters fall into? Trump is economically as ignorant as you can get. Despite employing immigrants he sees immigration as bad for the economy and despite making things in foreign countries and importing from them, he sees foreign trade as bad for the economy, and despite being married to one he sees immigrants as bad for the economy and despite being born to one he is in favour of mass deportation. The US economy is going to go to shit. Could it be that Norway has a more politically astute population? They have a good economy, stay out of wars, are more tolerant on social issues, less punitive about crime and accept higher taxes.... It all comes down to how much interest people take in politics, instead of snapchat.
3.
All Trump supporters right now -

My latest test of the Canon 1dx 2 - Now I understand people talking about Canon colours - they are nice. 
 

Did a revisit on my grading of the clips easier in this tread. I did not clip the highlights and was wondering if the colour information still was in the clips. By not using any LUT only grading, but now used the vector based grading in Colour Finale (the last clips), I was able to recover more then in versjon 1. I not sure at all if we get any more dynamic range using the clog picture style vs the standard - too me it looks the same. So when using clog or similar may only help if you want to adjust to another camera - as it may be easier to get the same look, or if one want a special look it may pay off to use the logs. (as you reduce the sharpening and saturation.)
 

Interesting. The noise in the blacks for the latest firmware for the C300 II, especially with Canon Log 3, is really low. This test shows the improvements: 
I haven't done A/B tests, however just pulling up the blacks and seeing basically no noise in my quick tests with Canon Log 3 was very impressive. The low-light image looks better than even the A7S II (didn't test crazy high ISOs). Since Canon was able to improve noise performance on the C300 II, perhaps the 1DX II with dual Digic 6+ processors can also provide even better noise performance in the future with a firmware update.
Someone mentioned a full-frame 5DC rumor (or perhaps that would be the 1DC II?). By crippling the 5DIV for video, they've left open the option to make a full-frame cinema camera (maybe that's also an option for the C700 with the rumored sensor swap capability; 5DC/1DC II would be the b-camera option).
I think even some of the die-hard Canon bashers are realizing that color is number one, which is why there's so much emotion around lack of other features, such as slow motion, log formats, video aids, and crop factors. If Canon didn't have great color, there wouldn't be any controversy- people just wouldn't use or care about their cameras.

At least according to this Canon rep. 
 

This is going to raise the blood pressure of a few people, I bet...

Oups! Well, I did say
"Those images are just basic screen grabs"
"poor light
ISO 8000, F2.8..."
Don't worry, I'll make up for it, I just wanted to illustrate the fact that my C300 luts applied well to the footage.

Ok example of clog - but you need to find a high dynamic scene that has content in the very low end of the histogram and the very top end using e.g. Canons standard profile. By using clog, the shadows will be raised. Then you need to expose correctly and revert it back to something similar as the standard profile (punch)  with the given luts (or manually grade), but with higher dynamic range. Unless you not able to get back to what is told to be "canon color science" (or correct colors) nothing is proven. Anybody can create a log profile and use whatever lut and show something- We can do this with any Sony camera as well.
I will try this with my 1dx2, but challenge other to do the same.... over the next days.
 In my previous example, earlier in the thread, I did not expose correctly and even if it was not clipping, I was not able to get correct colors for the light part of the picture.
What I see in the examples over, none of them seems to have a big dynamic range, and as such a log profile is not needed. You can just grade to your taste.
.
 

The C300 II is selling very well, sold out until then end of September: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134579-REG/canon_0635c002_eos_c300_mark_ii.html
We use the C300 II along with the 1DX II (for low-profile run & gun, travel shoots, and occasional 4k60p) and while it's not an ideal 'all-in-one' solution, it works very well in production given the excellent PDAF AF and great color and skintones straight out of camera (a real time-saver in post). The C300 II + 1DX II is lot more expensive than an FS7 up front, however time is money and ultimately getting better images (in focus!) in less time is more important than the initial savings for an FS7 (we're selling our FS700- 60p is good enough (and 120p on the A7S II is useful too (can match A7S II to Canon with a bit of work in post)).
As more professionals find PDAF saving time and money in higher and higher end productions, the PDAF cameras will naturally get more popular. The C700 will be even more like an Alexa/Amira but with PDAF- that's something ARRI and Sony don't have. Sony could bring their A7R II level AF (or better) to the pro cameras someday, and if they can get closer to ARRI/Canon for skintones in real-world lighting conditions (not just the studio), they'll put up a good challenge to Canon (and even ARRI).

To my eyes the colors coming from the 1DX Mkii look great.  I can push the footage more than enough when grading and it holds together.  I honestly do not see any reason to give up 60p and DPAF plus spend an extra $2K, for a imagined gain in color gamut, when the 1DX Mkii does not lack in this department. But that said each person has to decide what's important to them. I do know the difference of DPAF and 60p are readily apparent and can help tell the story. Tools that effect the way a story is portrayed trump slight differences in color science. And once that footage is compressed and put on YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix or played back on 99% of TVs any advantage of increased color gamut (if any) will be all but lost. However, 60p will still render as slow-motion, or give less motion blur... and DPAF will still keep your shots in focus. The reduced rolling shutter will also continue to be of value. These seem like more compelling features to me, but then again I'm more concerned with enhancing my ability to tell my story than a spec sheet.

Then you should know how hard it is. With a big sensor and a still lens? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to keep unrehearsed movements in focus, while framing the shot and moving the camera?
No offense, but you're full of shit. It's easy as being a "Cameraman"? Yeah, if you're shooting on a documentary camera - but not something like the 1DC, which is what we're talking about. Ever hear of a "focus puller?" There's a reason why there's a specialized job for this task. A focus puller has one of the most important jobs on any film shoot - it's one of the hardest skills. And anybody who actually has experience on a film shoot would know this obvious fact.
Either you're talking out of your ass or you're the best focus puller in the world. Or, in your words, just a "cameraman."
If you've never heard of a focus puller, it's time to start keeping your mouth shut and start learning.