HockeyFan12

Exactly. It's almost like the Red vs Alexa debate. Do you want the power (and responsibility) to dig in and get your hands dirty with the image, and to whatever extent you choose supervise and control every step of the experience yourself (Red/PC... or Sony) or do you want to pay a little more for something with worse specs that holds your hand throughout so it's harder to screw up (Alexa/Mac... or Canon) but ultimately less powerful? I know my choice.
Regarding your laptop breaking, you may be more of a power use than you think and end up burning out your graphics card. It's been a problem on every laptop I've bought, hence the Apple Care I consistently buy. I'm not a power user, myself, I have simple needs but still "pro" (Adobe Suite, mostly). I strongly recommend the retina MacBook pros (the 2013 generation refurbished if you're on a budget) despite this. Reliable and the pro res support makes a HUGE difference.
And yeah if the computer doesn't turn on it doesn't mean your files are lost. You can get them recovered professionally even if the drive is corrupted pretty often, and if the computer is broken but the drive works you can just tear it out and plug it into a toaster/caddy/whatever and recover your work.

I buy a top of the line rMBP every three years with Apple Care and then sell it and replace it before Apple Care runs out. It's decently fast and very portable for working on the run. My needs are VERY basic, though. Adobe Suite and that's about it and almost always ProRes 2k or 1080p. I just got the 2016 touch bar last year and I'm not crazy about it, though, in terms of what it offers over its predecessor. A refurbished 13" 2013-era retina may be all you need and it's very affordable, about $1000. I would not recommend it for power users, however, and I'm not one myself.
Usually my Mac Books still break quite a lot (almost always the graphics card or monitor), but I still have a working computer 99% of the time and I know I can fix it if it breaks. I use hard drives for back ups, and would recommend iCloud or Time Machine if you get a Mac. I keep a high end PC at home for when I don't have my laptop or when I need more horsepower, but I never use it. I mostly work from other people's computers so if I only had one machine and I worked from home maybe I would get an iMac instead. I probably don't need the PC.
I find the total cost of ownership to be lower for Macs, but mostly I need full ProRes support for work and all my clients use Macs exclusively. PC laptops seem to have worse build quality than Mac laptops, at least in my experience. For desktops it's more of a wash and a home built PC is often the way to go for pure performance (everyone I know seems to have one of those, too!).
I have had good luck with AppleCare so I continue to buy Macs as my primary machines. Given how often you use a computer (and how slow renders are), a higher end model pays for itself almost immediately but if you're using it mostly as a hobby machine, just get the best you can afford.
 

Great write up! The Focals (the high end ones especially) are apparently groundbreaking so far as dynamic headphones go and I hear the smaller set is good for the money, too. I'm sure it beats both the M50X and the DT1350s I recently upgraded to for work (which are great, too) and definitely the 7506. Wish I could have made it! Should have driven over sooner, was finishing up work for a client after meeting with a friend in Hollywood/Silver Lake and missed my appointment then had to rush back to send out some work. :/
If you're looking for a cheap set of Lambdas I'm probably selling my SR-3030 kit (SRM-313 and SR-303) for around $500 some time soon. I barely used them. I find the treble too aggressive for my taste, but they're really excellent if you like detail and sparkle. I mean, they're freaking amazing, but I listen very very very loud and by some miracle have very sensitive high frequency hearing still, so I prefer a more subdued sound signature when listening through entire albums. 

I have neither and should get both. I originally planned to start a production company, now I want to look for work (full time, ideally) in post at ad agencies. The freelance grind has worn me down.
I'm cutting a reel now, or at least culling material but I have a good idea of what I'm doing with the reel and someone more accomplished has generously offered to give me advice on what my level of client wants to see. I want to keep everything else minimal.
Home page is reel and contact info. Only three pages. "CV" "Blog" and then just a promotional blog with news and stuff and ideas, stuff clients might want to see that's more specific than the reel and old reels, but also fluff pieces and essays.
I want this website to look SIMPLE. Gray on gray. Or blue on gray or something.
I am a tech idiot and don't know how to write HTML since I was in middle school. I hear Wordpress is good? How does this work? I just want the simplest theme but I want it to feel customized.
For business cards, I've never had them (except at summer job once). I don't use Linked In or FaceBook for work, or have much presence online. Should I get business cards or focus on online? 
Thanks.

I'll see if I can give them a try this weekend and look out for the K240, but it's cheap enough I could just buy it and give it away if I don't like it (as I did the HD598s, dreadfully boring headphones, unlistenable). I'm trying the HE-1, which I hear good things about, but can't afford, and hoping to finally try the HD800, which I suspect will be too bright and clinical for my taste.
And I'm aware about the source, I have thousands of dollars in DAC and amp gear already and am buying even more today, my second tube amp. I have like four or five amps and two DACs still can't get everything just right. Hoping to sell everything except one pair for work (closed), one for the workstation (open), one for the vfx pc (cheap back ups), and some IEMs. I have an Apogee One at work, too, but a custom DAC/amp set up at home.
I actually find the sound quality coming from both my 5k iMac at work and 2016 retina MacBook Pro to be as good as many USB DACs, not far from the Apogee and only lacking with high impedance headphones that require some real meat and a high output impedance source to fully drive them (Sennheiser and Beyer). That said, I do not have terribly discriminating ears, but to my ears the newer 2016 Macs are quite good! My headphones at work are DT1350 Beyderdynamic and they sound pretty good just out of the computer. 
Still can't find the sound I like though lol.  Koss ESP950 through dual Wolfson DAC with a tube amp is the closest but bass is for shit. Stax sounds like a screaming banshee; Sennheiser like listening through ten layers of felt. I suspect the Stax Omega 2 (a bass heavy electrostat) driven through a massive amp would fit the bill, but it's again not affordable. It requires a $5000 amp to really drive it well.

The difference is virtually unnoticeable from what I understand and is completely, wildly overshadowed by model-to-model differences. Many of the best headphones are around 50ohm I think. I have heard that within the same model, the 32ohm Beyerdynamics might be the weaker performers, a little less refined but again, maybe a 5% difference at most. It's nothing to worry about except that you won't drive your HD800s that loudly out of your MacBook and will want an amp.

Yeah good idea. I have yet to hear anything other than electrostatics with enough detail for my taste and I have two pairs of mid-range electros. But electrostatics lack sub bass. The planars might be a good way to split the difference. I do not share your preferences (audio is more subjective than video imo, as ears are shaped very differently and measurements harder to reconcile with subjective experience so this is not a critique but simply my preference) but I do agree the HD600 series is too veiled if otherwise excellent.

If you're shooting in V Log definitely shoot 10bit. 8 bit is (generally) enough for (small gamut) display, but if you plan to grade or do any vfx, 10 bit capture can make a big difference because you'll be stretching the image before it's displayed. If you don't plan to grade the footage at all or color correct at all, 8 bit is fine, but that means limiting yourself to not even fixing the exposure. Given the option, I'd choose 10 bit every time (and I wouldn't choose 4k or RAW most of the time, so in terms of priority it's pretty high).
8 bit is the minimum that works as a display standard, but the capture standard must be bigger. Film has 14+ stops of dynamic range. Most images use 8-10 of them at most. Capture and display are different things. 
I hear the GH5 is amazing! Hope it goes well either way. If you're not shooting log, either should be good but I would still shoot 10 bit.
Fwiw, I work on 8 bit displays often but 99% of the time I render in 16 bit and the majority of the footage I work with is 10 bit or more color. The display is your limiting factor only after grading... in the grade, you will see far more detail in the 10 bit image as soon as you make an adjustment or introduce a transform LUT. Even on an 8 bit display.

Looks great! I prefer the desaturated/natural look, more cinematic if less immediately attention-grabbing.

A friend of mine has both, I think. The K702 is quite good for listening to music, especially EDM etc. however it's open and doesn't fold up so it's inappropriate for field use. Mildly sibilant highs slightly and punchy bass but overall just excellent. The M50 by comparison is relatively a monitor (more accurate, closed back) but it still sounds good, better than the Sonys for music listening. But if everyone else is using 7506 for monitoring, imo it makes sense to do the same imo.
The hi fi trend does not necessarily overlap with what are commonly used as monitors. The 7506 is a good monitor as it's the industry standard. I believe the HD600 and HD650 are used, too. But the hi fi stuff might work for monitoring, too. Of course, in theory you want speakers for your final mix.
For listening, I switch between Stax, an HD650, and the Koss ESP-950. I find the Koss has the best sound for everything but bass-heavy music. For mixing, I hire someone else to do it.  
 
 

Apples and oranges. It sounds like you envy the efficiency and technical acumen of those on this board who are shooting art in 4k for cheap when you're stuck meeting corporate demands at 1080p.
I work a lot on low budget national ads (I'm assuming they cost just under $250k/day per day on set, as that's about average) and even with big budgets for 30 second spots they lack the budget to shoot 4k and certainly to finish in 4k... because the infrastructure is "too big" to be a guy in a room doing all the post, but "too small" to be technicolor or light iron (which do most of the finishing post on the 4k stuff I work on). So yeah, I hear 4k and I run for the hills generally, and usually turn 4k gigs down unless there's a lot of extra money.
But... presumably most people here are working for smaller companies who can build their entire infrastructure around being a boutique 4k house, or it's just one guy or girl with enthusiasm for image quality out shooting art films. Imo, upgrading the infrastructure for network tv to go 4k won't happen any time soon, it's too expensive to replace that many moving parts and they just did it for HD. But smaller leaner companies like YouTube and Netflix are already all in. And individuals have been there for a while–smart phones shoot 4k, and some even display it.
Having millions of dollars and A list talent is a luxury I'd love to have. But not having it is liberating in its own way. When you're small enough, you have more flexibility in choosing your priorities. Personally, I would never shoot a project–not a short, and certainly not a feature–in 4k or RAW unless I had an unlimited budget and certainly not on a test bed hacked camera like this, but that won't stop those more ambitious and smarter than I am from creating great art without spending big bucks. 

Wow.
Only the Alexa has an image with substantially more dynamic range than the 5D RAW (11.5 stops sounds right, same as the MX, 12 stops on the CX00, 13-14 on the C300 Mk II, F55, F65 Dragon, etc., 15+ on the Alexa and Red's HDRx) and this also beats film before Vision 2 and the DI. The color and resolution and tonality should be great, too, and that's not the case with most cameras. If reliable enough to use seriously, the image should be in the same class as the absolute best of the best and in a tiny body.
And 2X stretch anamorphic on this... holy shit. For those willing to put in the work you will be rewarded. You will have no more excuses (from a camera perspective, excepting maybe reliability) for not producing world class imagery. Imo this will surpass the MX-line of Reds for subjective quality out of the box; the red/green chromasticities are too close on the MX–even on the Dragon imo–you will get richer color here and the same DR.
There's still no way the 5D IV rumor is true. But this is a nice consolation prize

I think this is some sort of meme that hasn't migrated to my corner of the world yet. :/ 

Yeah that's literally a list of everything that pro cameras don't have available because it's excessive or unnecessary (the Alexa, for instance, has no in-body or OIS stabilization available, no autofocus, and no true 4k, and is poor in low light relative to consumer cameras) and then things that only the highest end cameras have (a lack of rolling shutter, great slow motion, great color). The F55 I think is the closest thing to what you're asking for. (And perhaps appropriately I'm currently doing a lot of vfx work with the F55–it holds up! But I'm doing it on lower end stuff with very basic vfx, nothing like what you're doing which is more advanced.)
You will not get smooth footage without camera support. Maybe you don't need a gimbal. But a doorway dolly or skateboard dolly or slider could be nice? Slow motion can mitigate this to some extent but if the move is handheld it will look handheld. A balanced rig or good OIS will smooth the motion so it doesn't look as rough, but if you want it to look like a dolly use a dolly. If you want it to look like a steadicam, use a steadicam. 
As for focus, I would hire an AC and be very careful about hitting your marks or just have a friend volunteer to AC for you. Measure, place marks, have your AC hit your marks as your talent and operator do, never focus through the loupe or monitor and never with autofocus. Out of focus footage is the camera department's fault, not the camera's. Rolling shutter is the camera's fault and can be a big issue with match moving and yet that's something consumer cameras struggle with tremendously. So that's another reason to keep your moves slow as to mitigate it, also easier to nail focus that way. 
I'd wait until NAB but I think the F55 is the closest thing to what you're looking for and it's ten times the price. The Sony A7S fwiw has dreadful rolling shutter and some color issues. I would not use that for match moving despite the slow motion and low light abilities.
It might be worth getting an inexpensive b camera specifically for slow motion. The GH5 also might offer a lot of what you want, but nothing at the price will offer everything you want and autofocus is garbage for cinematic content anyway, better for docs and ENG.

I have a 70-200mm f2.8 II IS and just got a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM. The L is nicer, sure, but mostly it's just two stops faster. The plastic STM is much more stable for me. Better IS and much better balanced.
I'm blind to the enormous aesthetic differences you notice, I'll admit. To me it just looks slightly worse (bokeh fringe, cats eye, vignetting) and a lot slower.  No big differences in micro contrast or rendering. But the L is certainly a beast. Beautiful beautiful image, even wide open. 

I have a 70-200mm f2.8 II IS and just got a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM. The L is nicer, sure, but mostly it's just two stops faster. The plastic STM is much more stable for me. Better IS and much better balanced.
I'm blind to the enormous aesthetic differences you notice, I'll admit. To me it just looks slightly worse (bokeh fringe, cats eye, vignetting) and a lot slower.  No big differences in micro contrast or rendering. But the L is certainly a beast. Beautiful beautiful image, even wide open. 

Crop APS-C to 2.35:1 and you'll be very close. Full frame is a much bigger sensor. Doesn't matter much given lens equivalencies, though. There are f1.2 and f1.8 prime sets for Super35 you can't get for APS-C so a full frame look might be closer in some cases, not that most people are shooting wide open (generally f2.8-f5.6 from what I have experienced).

I think it will shoot 4k. 4k has really taken off on the very very low end, so for the videographer/enthusiast market there's value there. It won't feature Canon Log 2 or 15 stop DR. Too heavy to work with in post for most low end productions and arguably more than should have been packed into the C300 Mk II (most people in that range are well-served shooting 1080p on a C300 or FS7).
I still don't see what all the fuss is. Only one or two of my clients (or clients of places where I work) demand 4k delivery and I can't see that changing in the near future. 
 

That's strange - with fast glass I found the C100 II to be better in low light, or darn near impercetable.  Please don't compare a 18-135 STM @ F/5.6 vs. the 5d3 raw @ 50 1.2.  We're talking 4.5 stops of light here - I'm sure most of the footage you've seen out of the c100 was with much "slower" lenses.  The c100 II was usable up to about ISO 8000 IMO, and the 5d3 raw perhaps 3200.  All depends on if you're exposing for the shadows, highlights, applying NR in your raw workflow, etc.
Just my opinion, but the c100 II is really, really good in low light.  Not A7s territory of course, but man.

With the C500, at least, the gain is applied on a per-channel basis, so even the RAW footage has a set white balance. The advantage being color is retained in the highlights (but not clipped as saturation is rolled off appropriately). 
It's not a big deal, though. Rarely a deal killer. The C series suffers from worse color rendering under tungsten than under daylight, anyway.

This just isn't true if you know how to expose properly. There's a tendency to over-expose the CX00, but its image is better overall than the 5D III RAW (and yes I've owned both since they were released, and no I don't think either is TOTL amazing, either). The CX00 is cleaner, has better DR, has better noise texture, is sharper, has better color rendering for video and holds highlight saturation properly, etc. The lack of "full frame" look is subjective and that does favor the 5D for most users who like that look.
This is a common myth spread by people without light meters lol. Having owned both and used both on the same shoots, I'd frequently hear this myth repeated and was dumbfounded. Had any of these people actually A/Bd the cameras with proper exposure settings and proper handling of super whites? You'll quickly notice that the 5D RAW's highlights desaturate in an unsightly way when pulled back in ACR whereas the 100-109 IRE range from AVCHD recovers very cleanly, leading not only to better DR overall, but to proper color retention in the highlights without chroma clipping (as Sony and Panasonic exhibit). The issue is that people tend to vastly overexpose the CX00. C LOG puts 18% gray at 32 IRE or something, VERY low. RAW is gamma agnostic, but exposing the 5D like you'd expose a normal dSLR works well and leads to a pleasant over/under even exposing by eye. You can't do this with a log gamma and WideDR has its own problems.
That said, it also shows how a more difficult workflow leads to a better image. I work with a lot of poorly shot CX00 footage and most of the 5D RAW footage I see online looks great. I think it's more intuitive to expose the 5D but harder to do everything else, its workflow demands attention and the practice of shooting with it is a little more rigorous. People get better results because they put in more work setting up shots and in post and because the exposure is more intuitive for those making the leap from a dSLR. 

At home: Calibrated HP Dreamcolor driven by a BM intensity interface, $4k rec709 calibrated Panasonic LCD projector with brand new OEM bulb, calibrated ST60 Panasonic Plasma (CNET's highest rated tv of all time), HD650 headphones driven through a high end tube amp and high end dual Wolfson DAC, DT1350s and a portable amp/dac, 7506s, Stax electrostatic headphones 
At work: Calibrated 27" ultra sharp, other uncalibrated dell monitors for GUIs, calibrated 5k retinas iMacs, Flanders Scientific for color correction for tv, M Audio monitors, 7506s, etc. depending on where I am working at the time. Obviously we never do any heavy duty mixing in house with such anemic sound gear
Lol I still do most of my work on my rMBP's shitty non-calibrated display though and mostly use the high end gear for playing PS4 while massively high on edibles. Surprisingly the rMBP screen is good enough to judge most work other than color correction or something. You don't need crazy high end gear. I do really enjoy watching blu rays on the big screen, though, and listening to music on the HD650s. 
 

Paying rent.

Paying rent.

Unity engine? I have no idea (except that many people I know getting started in the industry are jumping ship and learning Unity instead). To me, it's a completely separate medium. But Marvel movies are already full of CGI action and ads are loaded with invisible vfx. Contemporary films already feel a lot like video games, my hope is that Unity and VR (which are their own thing, and incredibly awesome) allow film to get back to what it does well, which is record an event in a more physical and emotional way. I think film feels too much like video games already, and I see the two media diverging in the future (with VR becoming the dominant medium eventually).