HockeyFan12

Because it's antisemetic blather? The public sector might not have the right to censor hate speech, but the private sector does. I'd argue that putting a warning in front of something that offensive is an example of YouTube showing responsibility. 

This is a very interesting comment. 
I sort of laugh when DXO Mark assigns a good "landscape" score for 14+ stops of dynamic range (that I doubt are really there) as if we need 14 stops of dynamic range to shoot landscapes. Granted, the zone system asks for 10, but most color landscape photography (almost all of the best stuff) is shot on slide film, which has 5-6 stops of dynamic range. 
A printed photo will never have more than five stops of contrast (except with vantablack). So anything with a lot more dynamic range in the original scene will either look washed out or need to be compressed in processing or with an ND grad for a print. Even the zone system usually results in a rather tone-mapped print. (I never thought the zone system and tone mapping would work well in color–see Peter Lik's nicely composed but garishly processed photos. But then I realized it sort of can–see the Revenant, which is beautifully processed.)
The best looking (color) images I've seen, at least technically, are relatively "flat" scenes shot on 4x5 Velvia and viewed as slides on a light table–comprising four stops of scene dynamic range viewed backlit on an analogue display with as much contrast (display dynamic range) as an OLED and far better resolution and color. Looks hyper-real. Hyper-saturated. 
The Sigma doesn't get close. Not even close. But it does get a lot closer than most dSLRs.
(Fwiw, LED screens can display almost 10 stops of contrast, as backlit displays are much more contrasty than front-lit. OLEDs and plasma can display even more, but room ambience washes it out and you need a very high nit (10,000+) display to get the effect of a HDR display, which is even more stunning than the light table but not commercially viable.)
Furthermore, this gets controversial so take it with a grain of salt, but I had to grade footage from a high end 4k camera with a bayer sensor to match Kodak motion picture film. I used the vector scope to match chips on a color checker chart to set up a basic grade and found two things: even when everything matched (same saturation and hue) the film looked more saturated; and I could never match the vectorscopes perfectly because the graded video had a more diffuse point cloud around each color, the film had narrow peaks. I'm generalizing here, of course, but I believe Bayer sensors have inherent limitations. (So does Foveon, just different.)

Be careful throwing that term (Cultural Marxism) around, it carries strong anti-Semitic connotations. I agree that a lot of social media is designed to be addictive (which isn't good), but I don't think YouTube is part of a global conspiracy, zionist or otherwise. (If anything, it's capitalism's fault for YouTube pushing the lowest common denominator to please shareholders... not that I'm anti-capitalist, just in favor of some regulation or community backlash, perhaps.)
That's not to say there isn't something wrong. But it's also nothing new. We saw a very similar narrative (anti-globalist, anti-cosmopolitan pro-cultural identity) before WWII. There was a similar rise of "strong man" leaders, then, too. In contemporaneous literature, the Wasteland was largely about the loss of cultural identity in London. And even Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces explores the loss of ceremony and tradition in Western Civilization... A lot of the themes they explore are the same themes Richard Spencer focuses on, except, you know, without the white supremacy...
In a way, these forums are surrogate communities offering their own tribal identities. It's kind of funny. We should be spending more time with real communities, actually making films. But it feels a need, and we learn a lot.
And on the flip side, there's historically less famine now than ever in human history, quality of life is higher, and there's far less hot war now than is historically typical (let's hope that trend continues). I don't see how that's suicide. I do think there are deep problems to address, but they're not insurmountable unless we convince ourselves they are.

I hate to agree with such a dire prediction, but in many ways I do. YouTube is one problem... 24 hour news is a problem, too. Whichever side you're on politically, I think most of us can agree that the dynamics between the current administration and the media are broken and hurtful and cruel. (And worse, weirdly addictive.)
The internet is one of the most significant and empowering technological innovations in the history of civilization (imo). The best metaphor for technology that I know of is the Prometheus myth; now, things are moving so fast that we can really see the world burning. But at the same time there is less famine and disease and suffering than there has ever been.
Bad YouTube videos don't bother me much because there's also good stuff. What bothers me more are the comments and bullying. I never really watched much reality tv, or a lot of popular sitcoms, but I still like tv a lot. YouTube is fine. I do wish it were easier for niche content creators to see similar returns to the big guys, though. Maybe that will happen later. The current landscape bothers me a bit, but it's not causing me to freak out. Same shit. Different sandwich.
What does bother me is the Neo-tribal and feudal discourse that the internet for whatever reason (anonymity? lack of empathy?) promotes. What also bothers me is the addictive nature of it (and of loot boxes and social media apps that are modeled after gambling). I think we can get past this, but real name forums don't seem much better (RedUser is a pretty tribal place still) and I'm not sure VR will help or hurt–it has the potential to do both. It's more a question, as always, of how we respond.
The scariest part is when you see online feudalism ingress into the real world. Cyberbullying leading to suicide... Alt-right (and far left) violence fueled by echo chambers on reddit and 4chan... ISIS recruitment... etc. YouTube comments come to life. As a whole, humans are a resilient species. We'll adapt to change, take responsibility, repent, and collectively sacrifice ourselves, even sacrifice our civil liberties, whatever it takes for the greater good. The question to me now is the cost of it all, the cost of fast innovation and the difficulty we're having adapting to it.
I don't want to see a nuclear war started over a twitter fight. Maybe it's selfish of me–maybe the result of that would be lasting world peace, much as Americans stopped fighting Americans after the Civil War and WWII brought a global economy and political fraternity that up until now was working well. Good still won, despite the cost. But to me, personally, perhaps selfishly, I don't want to see nuclear war at any cost. I suspect humanity on an evolutionary level has a need for a tribal identity that will always divide us, and I think that now that we have the ability to destroy ourselves we have to address that at a deeper level–perhaps by transcending violence and feudalism, perhaps even by transcending capitalism some day (not for a while, I think capitalism is the best thing we've currently got).
As technology empowers us more and more, as a species, we need to rise to the occasion. It's the Prometheus myth after all. The same technology that threatens to tear us apart also empowers us to do something to prevent just that. I take some solace in how good humanity's track record has been–despite atrocities along the way–but I also fear that we've reached a breaking point from which we might potentially destroy our species or lose our souls. We need to work less on tech, more on ourselves.

I hate to agree with such a dire prediction, but in many ways I do. YouTube is one problem... 24 hour news is a problem, too. Whichever side you're on politically, I think most of us can agree that the dynamics between the current administration and the media are broken and hurtful and cruel. (And worse, weirdly addictive.)
The internet is one of the most significant and empowering technological innovations in the history of civilization (imo). The best metaphor for technology that I know of is the Prometheus myth; now, things are moving so fast that we can really see the world burning. But at the same time there is less famine and disease and suffering than there has ever been.
Bad YouTube videos don't bother me much because there's also good stuff. What bothers me more are the comments and bullying. I never really watched much reality tv, or a lot of popular sitcoms, but I still like tv a lot. YouTube is fine. I do wish it were easier for niche content creators to see similar returns to the big guys, though. Maybe that will happen later. The current landscape bothers me a bit, but it's not causing me to freak out. Same shit. Different sandwich.
What does bother me is the Neo-tribal and feudal discourse that the internet for whatever reason (anonymity? lack of empathy?) promotes. What also bothers me is the addictive nature of it (and of loot boxes and social media apps that are modeled after gambling). I think we can get past this, but real name forums don't seem much better (RedUser is a pretty tribal place still) and I'm not sure VR will help or hurt–it has the potential to do both. It's more a question, as always, of how we respond.
The scariest part is when you see online feudalism ingress into the real world. Cyberbullying leading to suicide... Alt-right (and far left) violence fueled by echo chambers on reddit and 4chan... ISIS recruitment... etc. YouTube comments come to life. As a whole, humans are a resilient species. We'll adapt to change, take responsibility, repent, and collectively sacrifice ourselves, even sacrifice our civil liberties, whatever it takes for the greater good. The question to me now is the cost of it all, the cost of fast innovation and the difficulty we're having adapting to it.
I don't want to see a nuclear war started over a twitter fight. Maybe it's selfish of me–maybe the result of that would be lasting world peace, much as Americans stopped fighting Americans after the Civil War and WWII brought a global economy and political fraternity that up until now was working well. Good still won, despite the cost. But to me, personally, perhaps selfishly, I don't want to see nuclear war at any cost. I suspect humanity on an evolutionary level has a need for a tribal identity that will always divide us, and I think that now that we have the ability to destroy ourselves we have to address that at a deeper level–perhaps by transcending violence and feudalism, perhaps even by transcending capitalism some day (not for a while, I think capitalism is the best thing we've currently got).
As technology empowers us more and more, as a species, we need to rise to the occasion. It's the Prometheus myth after all. The same technology that threatens to tear us apart also empowers us to do something to prevent just that. I take some solace in how good humanity's track record has been–despite atrocities along the way–but I also fear that we've reached a breaking point from which we might potentially destroy our species or lose our souls. We need to work less on tech, more on ourselves.

Viewers empathize with children and childish behavior. Spielberg is probably my favorite director, and he often chooses children as protagonists for this reason. (His adult protagonists are childish in their own way.)
This isn’t any different. These guys know what they’re selling and what they’re doing. It’s not even that different from the appeal Trump has on the Apprentice: childish, impulsive behavior, enabled by seemingly infinite wealth–a kid with a blank check and no parents at FAO Schwarz, who you can both enable and live vicariously through just by watching.
Which isn't really so bad or so different from what's come before. To me this stuff does seem worse, but I'm old and out of touch. Reality tv seemed bad in its time. Home Alone seemed irresponsible. 
Unless you want to censor speech on moral grounds, it’s on the viewer to choose something else, and the producer to self-censor in response to community boycotts or reduced viewership. This is what happened with the MPAA. This can work. Pewdiepie’s racism and antisemitism have already cost him financially, though not by much.
It’s on the viewers to choose. Just as it’s on the voters. If you see content you like, share it and support it financially. If you think something is wasting your time, turn it off.

I agree with this advice more than what I wrote before.
(Apologies for coming off as prescriptive, I didn't mean to. I recognize that "exception that breaks the rule" is a silly thing to write and presupposes you haven't done your research. You can look up previous Sundance–or whatever festival of your choosing–selections on IMDb and plot their run times if you want a purely objective metric. It might be worthwhile to if you haven't. Of course, this would be boring and require a large sample size to be useful, hence me relying on aphorisms instead of research.)
I'll caveat agreeing with @Thomas Hill with this:
Film festival submissions follow the same logic as FaceBook posts. 
Maybe you want to get a like from as many people as possible. So you work hard to say what you think people will like. You'll probably get a lot of likes!
Maybe you want to share something with fewer people but within a group whose values you share and admire. So you target your thoughts toward that group and only share it there. You'll probably get fewer likes, but they'll mean more to you...
Maybe you just want to scream out into the world and bare your soul. Or bare your soul to your closest friends, or a select group you admire. Riskiest gesture. Most fulfilling? Maybe? Maybe not. Sometimes just being part of a community is fun. I think the 48 Hour films (which I have no use for personally but have nothing against) cater really well to that.
Likewise, maybe you're making something to get into a festival (in which case the statistics of run time matter) or maybe you have a story you really want to tell and share however you can, in which case put that above all else. We don't know what you're after. Only you do. Know what you're doing, what your goals are. Be comfortable with them and their trade-offs. Ultimately, all media are social media. You can answer your own question.
(But imo, make what you want to make. Festivals aren't special. Your vision is.)

I agree with this advice more than what I wrote before.
(Apologies for coming off as prescriptive, I didn't mean to. I recognize that "exception that breaks the rule" is a silly thing to write and presupposes you haven't done your research. You can look up previous Sundance–or whatever festival of your choosing–selections on IMDb and plot their run times if you want a purely objective metric. It might be worthwhile to if you haven't. Of course, this would be boring and require a large sample size to be useful, hence me relying on aphorisms instead of research.)
I'll caveat agreeing with @Thomas Hill with this:
Film festival submissions follow the same logic as FaceBook posts. 
Maybe you want to get a like from as many people as possible. So you work hard to say what you think people will like. You'll probably get a lot of likes!
Maybe you want to share something with fewer people but within a group whose values you share and admire. So you target your thoughts toward that group and only share it there. You'll probably get fewer likes, but they'll mean more to you...
Maybe you just want to scream out into the world and bare your soul. Or bare your soul to your closest friends, or a select group you admire. Riskiest gesture. Most fulfilling? Maybe? Maybe not. Sometimes just being part of a community is fun. I think the 48 Hour films (which I have no use for personally but have nothing against) cater really well to that.
Likewise, maybe you're making something to get into a festival (in which case the statistics of run time matter) or maybe you have a story you really want to tell and share however you can, in which case put that above all else. We don't know what you're after. Only you do. Know what you're doing, what your goals are. Be comfortable with them and their trade-offs. Ultimately, all media are social media. You can answer your own question.
(But imo, make what you want to make. Festivals aren't special. Your vision is.)

I agree with this advice more than what I wrote before.
(Apologies for coming off as prescriptive, I didn't mean to. I recognize that "exception that breaks the rule" is a silly thing to write and presupposes you haven't done your research. You can look up previous Sundance–or whatever festival of your choosing–selections on IMDb and plot their run times if you want a purely objective metric. It might be worthwhile to if you haven't. Of course, this would be boring and require a large sample size to be useful, hence me relying on aphorisms instead of research.)
I'll caveat agreeing with @Thomas Hill with this:
Film festival submissions follow the same logic as FaceBook posts. 
Maybe you want to get a like from as many people as possible. So you work hard to say what you think people will like. You'll probably get a lot of likes!
Maybe you want to share something with fewer people but within a group whose values you share and admire. So you target your thoughts toward that group and only share it there. You'll probably get fewer likes, but they'll mean more to you...
Maybe you just want to scream out into the world and bare your soul. Or bare your soul to your closest friends, or a select group you admire. Riskiest gesture. Most fulfilling? Maybe? Maybe not. Sometimes just being part of a community is fun. I think the 48 Hour films (which I have no use for personally but have nothing against) cater really well to that.
Likewise, maybe you're making something to get into a festival (in which case the statistics of run time matter) or maybe you have a story you really want to tell and share however you can, in which case put that above all else. We don't know what you're after. Only you do. Know what you're doing, what your goals are. Be comfortable with them and their trade-offs. Ultimately, all media are social media. You can answer your own question.
(But imo, make what you want to make. Festivals aren't special. Your vision is.)

From what I understand (and this is something I read a portion of one wikipedia article on, so I don't understand much), most so-called "holograms" are either stereoscopic AR (hololens) or a pepper's ghost (Tupac) or at best an implementation of a lenticular display (like the 3DS except with a wide viewing angle and without eye tracking). Lenticular displays divide the resolution in each dimension by a factor of the number of discrete viewing perspectives... so a UHD hologram would become 240X135 if you have a 16X16 display hologram...  and that's not even enough perspectives for a decent horizonatal viewing angle. Think Lytro cameras, but in reverse. I think the Lytro cinema camera is 755 megapixels so you'd want something like that to get a cinema-quality hologram, both on the capture and display side...
Don't quote me on this but the 7D holograms are likely glorified wide FOV stereoscopic 3D (the whale video is a magic leap promotional video rendering in CGI). It's probably just like those 3D IMAX shows from the past, but updated a bit. Just my guess. And I've heard the Red Helium technology is a four-view lenticular display, possibly with some sort of tabletop viewing tech on top of that that provides the illusion of projection from the screen. (3DS is two-view with eye tracking and must be viewed within a narrow viewing cone.) From what I've heard, there's no really groundbreaking tech there, but it's all in the implementation of course. The iPhone was only groundbreaking to the extent that it worked well. :/
I am excited for the 90D, but the crop will probably kill it.

A few friends of mine got a 25 minute film into SXSW and were able to secure over a million dollars in funding for a subsequent feature from its success. Long shorts aren't necessarily a bad thing... if they're good.
As a rule (and festival programmers repeat this to me), 12-60 minute is a no man's land for festival entry and for viability on streaming platforms (for original content). Under ten minutes is the new guideline for shorts, even. That article mentions a few medium-length projects that got into a few unnamed festivals... and yet you have hundreds of traditional format shorts (and features) getting into A-list festivals every year. So the article is at best pointing out the exceptions that prove the rule, and at worst being provocative and misleading.
As Sandy McKendrick wrote, ""Student films come in three sizes, too long, much too long, and very much too long." Even if we consider ourselves above student films (I don't), it's true for festival entries, too. Your job, if you want to secure financing, is to leave people wanting to see more. In which case, nothing is worse than something that's too long.
....except something that's not long enough to get the point across in the first place.
If you have a story to tell, the story will determine its own length. But a medium-length project will 99% of the time be more challenging to get into a festival or staff pick:
http://filmmakermagazine.com/99583-shorter-is-better-sundance-programmer-mike-plante-offers-advice-on-short-film-strategy-at-the-sundance-next-festival/#.WkqNNSOZMlU
The self-fulfilling prophecy of the equation is that 20+ minute shorts must be EXCEPTIONAL to get programmed. As a result, they'll stand out not just for increased duration leaving a stronger impression, but also for being the best of the best at a given festival.
And if you just want to sell a feature, make a feature and sell it. But that's a separate can of worms...

Losing 20 pounds.

A few friends of mine got a 25 minute film into SXSW and were able to secure over a million dollars in funding for a subsequent feature from its success. Long shorts aren't necessarily a bad thing... if they're good.
As a rule (and festival programmers repeat this to me), 12-60 minute is a no man's land for festival entry and for viability on streaming platforms (for original content). Under ten minutes is the new guideline for shorts, even. That article mentions a few medium-length projects that got into a few unnamed festivals... and yet you have hundreds of traditional format shorts (and features) getting into A-list festivals every year. So the article is at best pointing out the exceptions that prove the rule, and at worst being provocative and misleading.
As Sandy McKendrick wrote, ""Student films come in three sizes, too long, much too long, and very much too long." Even if we consider ourselves above student films (I don't), it's true for festival entries, too. Your job, if you want to secure financing, is to leave people wanting to see more. In which case, nothing is worse than something that's too long.
....except something that's not long enough to get the point across in the first place.
If you have a story to tell, the story will determine its own length. But a medium-length project will 99% of the time be more challenging to get into a festival or staff pick:
http://filmmakermagazine.com/99583-shorter-is-better-sundance-programmer-mike-plante-offers-advice-on-short-film-strategy-at-the-sundance-next-festival/#.WkqNNSOZMlU
The self-fulfilling prophecy of the equation is that 20+ minute shorts must be EXCEPTIONAL to get programmed. As a result, they'll stand out not just for increased duration leaving a stronger impression, but also for being the best of the best at a given festival.
And if you just want to sell a feature, make a feature and sell it. But that's a separate can of worms...

From what I understand (and this is something I read a portion of one wikipedia article on, so I don't understand much), most so-called "holograms" are either stereoscopic AR (hololens) or a pepper's ghost (Tupac) or at best an implementation of a lenticular display (like the 3DS except with a wide viewing angle and without eye tracking). Lenticular displays divide the resolution in each dimension by a factor of the number of discrete viewing perspectives... so a UHD hologram would become 240X135 if you have a 16X16 display hologram...  and that's not even enough perspectives for a decent horizonatal viewing angle. Think Lytro cameras, but in reverse. I think the Lytro cinema camera is 755 megapixels so you'd want something like that to get a cinema-quality hologram, both on the capture and display side...
Don't quote me on this but the 7D holograms are likely glorified wide FOV stereoscopic 3D (the whale video is a magic leap promotional video rendering in CGI). It's probably just like those 3D IMAX shows from the past, but updated a bit. Just my guess. And I've heard the Red Helium technology is a four-view lenticular display, possibly with some sort of tabletop viewing tech on top of that that provides the illusion of projection from the screen. (3DS is two-view with eye tracking and must be viewed within a narrow viewing cone.) From what I've heard, there's no really groundbreaking tech there, but it's all in the implementation of course. The iPhone was only groundbreaking to the extent that it worked well. :/
I am excited for the 90D, but the crop will probably kill it.

A few friends of mine got a 25 minute film into SXSW and were able to secure over a million dollars in funding for a subsequent feature from its success. Long shorts aren't necessarily a bad thing... if they're good.
As a rule (and festival programmers repeat this to me), 12-60 minute is a no man's land for festival entry and for viability on streaming platforms (for original content). Under ten minutes is the new guideline for shorts, even. That article mentions a few medium-length projects that got into a few unnamed festivals... and yet you have hundreds of traditional format shorts (and features) getting into A-list festivals every year. So the article is at best pointing out the exceptions that prove the rule, and at worst being provocative and misleading.
As Sandy McKendrick wrote, ""Student films come in three sizes, too long, much too long, and very much too long." Even if we consider ourselves above student films (I don't), it's true for festival entries, too. Your job, if you want to secure financing, is to leave people wanting to see more. In which case, nothing is worse than something that's too long.
....except something that's not long enough to get the point across in the first place.
If you have a story to tell, the story will determine its own length. But a medium-length project will 99% of the time be more challenging to get into a festival or staff pick:
http://filmmakermagazine.com/99583-shorter-is-better-sundance-programmer-mike-plante-offers-advice-on-short-film-strategy-at-the-sundance-next-festival/#.WkqNNSOZMlU
The self-fulfilling prophecy of the equation is that 20+ minute shorts must be EXCEPTIONAL to get programmed. As a result, they'll stand out not just for increased duration leaving a stronger impression, but also for being the best of the best at a given festival.
And if you just want to sell a feature, make a feature and sell it. But that's a separate can of worms...

Losing 20 pounds.

Losing 20 pounds.

A few friends of mine got a 25 minute film into SXSW and were able to secure over a million dollars in funding for a subsequent feature from its success. Long shorts aren't necessarily a bad thing... if they're good.
As a rule (and festival programmers repeat this to me), 12-60 minute is a no man's land for festival entry and for viability on streaming platforms (for original content). Under ten minutes is the new guideline for shorts, even. That article mentions a few medium-length projects that got into a few unnamed festivals... and yet you have hundreds of traditional format shorts (and features) getting into A-list festivals every year. So the article is at best pointing out the exceptions that prove the rule, and at worst being provocative and misleading.
As Sandy McKendrick wrote, ""Student films come in three sizes, too long, much too long, and very much too long." Even if we consider ourselves above student films (I don't), it's true for festival entries, too. Your job, if you want to secure financing, is to leave people wanting to see more. In which case, nothing is worse than something that's too long.
....except something that's not long enough to get the point across in the first place.
If you have a story to tell, the story will determine its own length. But a medium-length project will 99% of the time be more challenging to get into a festival or staff pick:
http://filmmakermagazine.com/99583-shorter-is-better-sundance-programmer-mike-plante-offers-advice-on-short-film-strategy-at-the-sundance-next-festival/#.WkqNNSOZMlU
The self-fulfilling prophecy of the equation is that 20+ minute shorts must be EXCEPTIONAL to get programmed. As a result, they'll stand out not just for increased duration leaving a stronger impression, but also for being the best of the best at a given festival.
And if you just want to sell a feature, make a feature and sell it. But that's a separate can of worms...

I agree, a C100 Mk II and an 80D would be my choice. Not so much for image quality (which is still very very good) but convenience. Once your workload scales up, every hour transcoding or fixing weird Sony SLGO2 colors is going to cost you $50-$100 minimum... But at first you don't want to pay a ton and get into debt. So I think Canon's cameras combine the ease of use and image quality that's required without costing a ton, even if you can get a little more with a lot more effort by spending a little bit less elsewhere. For hobbyists and people stealing locations, I think mirrorless is cool. But for getting into paying work the C100 Mk II imo is the best choice (it would also be my choice for personal work, but that's a personal preference).
I think the 1DC would offer a better image for the price, but not by much, and only with a lot more overhead for storage and a lot more kit to set up focus aids and accessories, etc. 
If you're starting a business, I would say C100 Mk II for sure. Otherwise, just whatever intrigues you most as a hobbyist. 

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. 

I much prefer the image of the C100 and the ergonomics, but the A7S is better for lowlight and gimbal work. If you're picking up a b camera for an Alexa or Red, the A7S might be better because it's very good at what those cameras are bad at.
For an A camera, I would take the Canon, no brainer. It's far more capable with a much better looking image overall. (Just my opinion.)
On the used market, also consider the F3 and FS100 and FS700. Not my favorites, but I prefer all three to the A7S as an A camera. A7SII is a little better, though.

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. 

Thanks! I'm flattered. I'll admit I'm wrong pretty often but I do try to think things through!

In that case I’m sorry, I overreacted and misinterpreted your post.
I don’t think anyone should be judged primarily by what gear they own or use. But there are nevertheless better choices of gear for different circumstances. Ultimately, your choice of equipment will be one of many choices that’s reflected in the final product. And that’s what I think you should be judged on.
But yes, gear is far from the most important decision a creative will make. For amateurs like me, high end cameras are a much worse choice (imo) regardless of budget… too difficult to operate or steal shots with and only for a marginal improvement in technical image quality. Most of the content I’ve seen on this site that’s been shot on an Alexa or something is usually among the worst looking, because that’s a harder camera to use well without a larger crew and that far outweighs the technical superiority.
But I do think it’s something that matters… on a case by case basis… On the Revenant, the Alexa mattered.
On the other hand, it’s this same thinking that makes me so critical of Netflix’ decision to focus on “true 4k” over whatever the creative team would prefer. Cannes definitely has a better approach–judge the painting, not the brush. But that isn’t to say the brush doesn’t matter, just to say that all that matters is what you do with it. So I mostly agree!
No I couldn’t afford the Bay Area! Beautiful part of the country, though. 

In that case I’m sorry, I overreacted and misinterpreted your post.
I don’t think anyone should be judged primarily by what gear they own or use. But there are nevertheless better choices of gear for different circumstances. Ultimately, your choice of equipment will be one of many choices that’s reflected in the final product. And that’s what I think you should be judged on.
But yes, gear is far from the most important decision a creative will make. For amateurs like me, high end cameras are a much worse choice (imo) regardless of budget… too difficult to operate or steal shots with and only for a marginal improvement in technical image quality. Most of the content I’ve seen on this site that’s been shot on an Alexa or something is usually among the worst looking, because that’s a harder camera to use well without a larger crew and that far outweighs the technical superiority.
But I do think it’s something that matters… on a case by case basis… On the Revenant, the Alexa mattered.
On the other hand, it’s this same thinking that makes me so critical of Netflix’ decision to focus on “true 4k” over whatever the creative team would prefer. Cannes definitely has a better approach–judge the painting, not the brush. But that isn’t to say the brush doesn’t matter, just to say that all that matters is what you do with it. So I mostly agree!
No I couldn’t afford the Bay Area! Beautiful part of the country, though.