sondreg

A DVXuser forum member Noah Yuan-Vogel  shot at various ISOs : http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?356958-New-EVA1-footage-coming/page8
You can download the clips here: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/f0vva21d3xie8/EVA1
Cheers to @Zak Forsman for uploading the parts on YT:
 

Downloaded some of the footage and played around with it in Resolve, NR handles noise surprisingly well at 8000, more than usable! Shame he used a T4 lens, getting the rest underexposed... Impressive imo but still very hard to judge without proper exposure on base iso

Canon C500 with 7Q, I have this best setup. The files grade perfectly. It does 12 bit 444 in 2k up to 60fps and it looks amazing. 
Only downside is the file size. 

I shot these with the above setup 
https://vimeo.com/228199666
https://vimeo.com/229622680
https://vimeo.com/229623629
 

Hypercardioid condensers are neat for this application, but also very sensitive to sibilances which gets you really close to your subject. Which you may or may not want. Obviously a condenser mic will always sound better, but they are not gentle when the subject turns their head against the mic. A lav would be safer because of their omnidirectional pattern meaning the sound won't change as much when not faced directly towards the sound source.
Also lavs are way more flexible, and take very little time to set up, especially when moving around, and a lot easier to carry around than a big mic stand on smaller projects. Especially if you're on a budget (EDIT: and will use the equipment for future projects, wireless lavs are deffo not that cheap!) a lav is the way to go. I like the Sennheiser AVX system because of the rugged antenna, but the g3 has the advantage of being able to use AA batteries.
my 2 cents
Edit: come to think of it, you can get lav mics with standard jack cables for cheap if you don't need the wireless transmitters/receivers, if you really want to budget.

Atleast consider what you need to do the work into the equation. Your camera wasn't free when you bought it, and it would probably cost you to rent if you didn't have one. Storage and an editing pc isn't free either. Neither is travel, royalty free music, lunch, software, etc... You'd also want to charge some for future investments too. How are you going to afford, say, a new lens through work if you spend all your money working? You'll quickly find these things really add up... This they should atleast cover!
If you're doing it for free you're practically throwing away your hard earned money & devaluing video work in your area, which in my opinion is totally unacceptable.

Atleast consider what you need to do the work into the equation. Your camera wasn't free when you bought it, and it would probably cost you to rent if you didn't have one. Storage and an editing pc isn't free either. Neither is travel, royalty free music, lunch, software, etc... You'd also want to charge some for future investments too. How are you going to afford, say, a new lens through work if you spend all your money working? You'll quickly find these things really add up... This they should atleast cover!
If you're doing it for free you're practically throwing away your hard earned money & devaluing video work in your area, which in my opinion is totally unacceptable.

Atleast consider what you need to do the work into the equation. Your camera wasn't free when you bought it, and it would probably cost you to rent if you didn't have one. Storage and an editing pc isn't free either. Neither is travel, royalty free music, lunch, software, etc... You'd also want to charge some for future investments too. How are you going to afford, say, a new lens through work if you spend all your money working? You'll quickly find these things really add up... This they should atleast cover!
If you're doing it for free you're practically throwing away your hard earned money & devaluing video work in your area, which in my opinion is totally unacceptable.

Atleast consider what you need to do the work into the equation. Your camera wasn't free when you bought it, and it would probably cost you to rent if you didn't have one. Storage and an editing pc isn't free either. Neither is travel, royalty free music, lunch, software, etc... You'd also want to charge some for future investments too. How are you going to afford, say, a new lens through work if you spend all your money working? You'll quickly find these things really add up... This they should atleast cover!
If you're doing it for free you're practically throwing away your hard earned money & devaluing video work in your area, which in my opinion is totally unacceptable.

Atleast consider what you need to do the work into the equation. Your camera wasn't free when you bought it, and it would probably cost you to rent if you didn't have one. Storage and an editing pc isn't free either. Neither is travel, royalty free music, lunch, software, etc... You'd also want to charge some for future investments too. How are you going to afford, say, a new lens through work if you spend all your money working? You'll quickly find these things really add up... This they should atleast cover!
If you're doing it for free you're practically throwing away your hard earned money & devaluing video work in your area, which in my opinion is totally unacceptable.

Hypercardioid condensers are neat for this application, but also very sensitive to sibilances which gets you really close to your subject. Which you may or may not want. Obviously a condenser mic will always sound better, but they are not gentle when the subject turns their head against the mic. A lav would be safer because of their omnidirectional pattern meaning the sound won't change as much when not faced directly towards the sound source.
Also lavs are way more flexible, and take very little time to set up, especially when moving around, and a lot easier to carry around than a big mic stand on smaller projects. Especially if you're on a budget (EDIT: and will use the equipment for future projects, wireless lavs are deffo not that cheap!) a lav is the way to go. I like the Sennheiser AVX system because of the rugged antenna, but the g3 has the advantage of being able to use AA batteries.
my 2 cents
Edit: come to think of it, you can get lav mics with standard jack cables for cheap if you don't need the wireless transmitters/receivers, if you really want to budget.

Oh! Didn't actually read through the entire update log! My bad! However I'm currently in the process of buying the Studio version so I can check that it's indeed the case. Might just be another bug from them as there seem to be a lot of them...

"I've come to realize the public at large does not have my educational attainment"
The internet never fails to entertain me for all the wrong reasons.

What is confusing is that this line below is also in the free versions description:
"Added support for hardware accelerated HEVC decode on supported NVIDIA GPUs on DaVinci Resolve Studio on Windows and Linux"
But yes there is the Studio word.
So it must be that there is no support for HEVC in the free Windows Resolve version.

http://www.fangsfilmgear.com/wolf-packs.html - This is the only thing I've heard of, personally don't have a lot of cards so don't have one of these. You put ready to use ones in one satchel, and used up ones in the other. Then as you clean the footage off you put them in the correct satchel.
 
What I use is a simple 4x SD Card Case for 5 bucks

If you use a lot of different application you might want to use Symlink in ur project folders. - since your using FCPX I assume you are on a mac. I don't recall the exact name but I think the software I use was called Symlinker, very easy to setup. It's essentially a folder 'shortcut' that acts as a real folder.
Keep 1 master LUTS folder where you store and organize, and symlink it in every programs LUT directory.

This was just posted 30 mins ago on the same channel - seems to just be a different grade

This was just posted 30 mins ago on the same channel - seems to just be a different grade

Anyone know how transferring the license works now without the dongle? I.e. can you still install it on two machines - but this time without the dongle? 

I didn't read your post because its was to long and probably just useless insults.
But to the rest, here meanwhile is actually showing and proving exactly my point in the first post. He haven't even read the article from Reuters that writes about a successful outcome for an investor in a profitable company.
Instead he goes by NOFS click bait fake news headline that was first started by a hatemonger/blogger that nows squat about pretty much anything.
So what we have is a chain where everyone only reads and takes in the fake sidetrack story while at the same time believing that what they say originated from the original source.
And we all know this is a global problem in actual news as well. People want to believe the fake version of things rather than reality. We see it in politics, war, you name it.
And it is a problem.

Different codecs will have a lot of impact yes, so if you're going big it's best to transcode everything into the same format, the newer version of Premiere allows you to automatically transcode all footage as ur ingesting and still being able to edit. You can also use Adobe Encore for the transcoding upon ingestion.
Also the way you import footage can have a lot of impact on performance, even though the files aren't actually added (such as XMLs that aren't accepted or text files from importing folders). So when you import files in a bigger project, make sure to only import files supported by Premiere.
It may benefit you to transcode every video file over night(s) and relink the media to the transcoded version.
Not so sure of how the 2 different versions compare to indexing though, but maybe increasing cache size or something to store the index data is possible?

I've never had any problems using the 28-70 on Fotodiox Pro Nik-EF one, which is around 1000grams. But it might not be ideal if you change lenses a lot, as I've read the pin that holds it in place can break during lens transfers (personally never had this issue).

Go with this option, great combo. Do you already own canon glass?

Was never a big fan of the screens or ergonomics on the A6xxx series, maybe I should get used to it though. Not sure where the cheap prices come from though, as the cheapest camera body I find is 980€, 1700€ with adapters. Definately a strong camera but personally not a big fan of it

Sorry, had a senior moment there. Well a double one actually.
Sony are doing a £150 cash back deal which I took to the price I saw one in a store for (which had sneakily already had the discount applied!!). I was also using the not far off parity exchange rate but the pound seems to have made a slight comeback.
With the real cash back deal its £679 (not the £529 I had in my head!) which is about €750.
So, yes, apart from it being way more expensive than your budget and you hating the screen and ergonomics of it then it was a very sage recommendation

If you're not married to having an OVF, you might want to look at the Sony A6300.
With a speedbooster adapter you can have FF FOV, even better low light performance and AF from your Canon lenses and with a regular adapter you can still have the AF and take advantage of the crop for extra reach for your wildlife. 
And if you have some ice packs around, you can also do a bit of 4K on it as well if you need to.
I think it will give you a far more versatile setup for your budget and IQ wise you won't be suffering for it either.
With the current price of the camera, you should be able to get all 3 pieces (the body and both adapters) for €1000 budget new.