Mark Romero 2

I would say if you aren't doing a lot of color work you aren't going to need 10 bit capture. Flog works pretty well in 8bit in general, more prone to banding of course. 

I think 10 bit can help in terms of dynamic range. 10 it color should hold up better in shadows, when raising in post. That said again if you aren't doing much in post you probably won't really notice the difference between 10 and 8. 

I don't think 10 bit is overrated. Its just not needed for every project. 

Which is why I vote for owning BOTH!!!

Wow that looks nice. Just about a perfect exposure.

Fooling around with HLG. Adjusted curves using a waveform and added some saturation. 

It definitely seems a bit cleaner then log. Skin tones looked good according to the vectorscopes. 

 

Which is why I vote for owning BOTH!!!

I thought the C200 had comparable DR? Regardless, I think if you’re in the category of shooter where you are using an EVA1 or C200, you probably can make gorgeous images with either. 

It’s funny how perspective plays into gear opinions. Being a Raw shooter, I see the C200 as a Raw cinema camera that has some 8bit proxies thrown in.

This is a warning that many of you may already heed.
My experience: In the past I've learned to be wary of Amazon vendors.  Some will sell international versions of cameras that are not supported in the US, for example. Last summer my wife and I purchased two Samsung Gear Fit2 watches.  Mine stopped working the first weekend in November.  I sent it in. Samsung responded today that they cannot fix the watch because it is an international model and will need to be shipped to Italy for repair. This week I thought of purchasing a second X-T3 from Amazon rather than from B and H. I'm glad I didn't make that mistake.

These results are shocking for me ? h265 > ProRes ?! Insane. I think i will redo this test with my own RAW footage.

I just bought the fringer ef-fx adapter and it works well with IS lenses and the autofocus works well on recent canon lenses. My Tamron is old I guess so it doesn’t autofocus as fluidly.

Wtf? Do people on this forum even work in production? EVERYTHING with a budget I work on is Alexa with fast lenses close to wide open, big soft LED sources, and practicals that play as real scene lighting. Low light levels are the current flavor, not only for speed (HUGE on paid work where producers are trying to save pennies anywhere they can), but because at those intensities, lighting looks about the same to the eye as it will to camera, as opposed to high levels where you'll often have no idea of your ratios until you pull out a meter or a monitor. This also means controlling your sources, blocking light, and choosing visually conducive locations becomes more important than ever, as your keys aren't nearly bright enough to knock errant light down. 
Maybe we need to make a topic detailing current industry visual and sound techniques, just so we're all on the same page with how things are done now and what matters.

I am not going to try and tell you what to do, but one thing you should think about is that your Canon lenses - as good as they are  - will still continue to go down in value. I don't expect them to go up in value (unless you have a very rare canon lens that is a true collectors item).
Most likely Canon (and third-party manufacturers) will continue to make lenses for a long time in Canon mount, and some / many will improve upon the lenses you already have. 
Again, not telling you what to do. But if you ever decide which system you want to use, then do realize that whatever lenses you currently own will (most likely) continue to depreciate their value (although generally not as quickly as camera bodies).

No converter ever seems to have the options I'm looking for. I first started using ffmpeg to create proxies. After shooting I run a little python script that scans input folders and creates tiny 500 kb/s H.264 proxies with metadata burn in. I tried other converters but I had so many issues with not being able to preserve folder structure, not being able to control framerate, not being able to burn in the metadata I want, etc. I've also had issues with reading metadata--sometimes VLC's media information seems off, but if I use ffprobe I can get a lot of details about a media file.
I also use ffmpeg now to create H.265 files since Resolve's encoders are not very good. I can get SIGNIFICANTLY fewer artifacts if I export to DNxHR, and then use ffmpeg to convert to H.265 than if I export from Resolve as H.265.
And recently I did a job that asked for a specific codec for video and audio, the combination of which wasn't available to export straight out. So I exported video once, then audio, then used fmpeg to losslessly mux the two streams. And another little project that required me to convert video to GIF. It's become a real swiss army knife for me.
Yes, Resolve has a batch converter. Put all your files on a timeline, and then go to the deliver page. You'll want to select "Individual Clips" instead of "Single Clip." Then in the File tab you can choose to use the source filename.

Awesome, an expert! Please show examples, reason, and solution!

https://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/

Well... yes, if you are interested only in exposure.
it ain't the same if you are comparing depth of field at equivalent focal lengths.
Also, if it means using the same ISO value among different sensors, then sensor performance is generally going to be better on the larger sensor.

Markets vary according to national regions, go figure worldwide or industry segments. No need to set up a hierarchy in-between, nor hostile vibes neither showing off.

I've seen and enjoyed it actually. Pity they've forgotten to add 4K/60p. I had bought 1 camera unit at least : -)

Actually, the Black Friday sale on Filmsimplified.com is pretty good - 85% off on the Resolve training, and I've just bought it
It's designed for beginners so i'm not sure how much stuff I've worked out already, but it includes Fusion which I have no clue about, and Fairlight which I only have basic knowledge of, so that should be useful!

I thought you were going to pull a Charlton Heston with your a7s:
"Pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
Maybe @Andrew Reid can start working on a NEW camera profile called a7SHD where we can give new Fuji, Nikon and Canon cameras those lovely green skin tones from the original a7S???

I was pretty busy yesterday with other things. But I did have a brief play with the Z6 in as fairly dark room. I took pictures at 6400 ISO. They came out really clean.  I have a feeling this cameras is going to live up to the hype regarding low light performance. 
Some notes: the camera feels light. It's clearly well made,  but not heavy.  The only lens I've attached so far is the 24-70mm native lens... I like it.  I love the size.  I mostly shot with the Canon yesterday as the Nikon was charging. The Nikon feels like a feather next to the 1DXMk2. As we bought the Nikon to be a go everywhere camera, the small and light combination checks a lot of boxes for us. I usually associate light weight with poor build quality... in most products. But this is strangely not the case with the Nikon. The camera is solid and of high quality. Holding it you feel confident that it will not let you down.  I can report that I do like the ergonomics, but I do miss the battery grip with shutter button. We always opt for a battery grip on our cameras. Nikon missed out on some tidy profits by omitting this option with the Z6/7. 
I suspect I will miss the portrait tilt of the X-T3. Who knew that was a thing? But once you've had a screen with portrait tilt, it's something you realize is pretty handy. I don't miss the flip out screen of the GH cameras. I always use an external monitor or recorder when shooting video anyway. 
Single card slot is a non issue for me. Menus... I like the menus... they seem really easy to navigate. The learning curve is not too steep if you are familiar with modern cameras. 
It's a very different camera than the X-T3 and Canon in feel and handling and vibe. It beats the GH5/S in hand. Overall, I would say it reminds me most of the Sony... if the Sony was more refined. 
I plan to do some shooting with the Z today. I need to understand how it compares to the Canons... both the 1DXMk2 and C200. I want to know how easy it is to match the footage with the Canons... the C200 in particular. I know the C200 can be made to look like the Nikon... RawLite has a lot of depth. But can NLog bend to look like the C200 without breaking? 
A word about the EOS R... that was the camera we wanted to purchase. The cats out of the bag.  I'm confident it would have matched perfectly to the C200. But Canon just had to pull a Canon. Cropping the 4k video to essentially m43... but without the ability to offset the extreme crop with a speedbooster. Hey Canon, Nikon and Fuji send their regards. With that out of the way,  I REALLY want to love this camera. It's off to a good start, I'll know more soon.  

I thought you were going to pull a Charlton Heston with your a7s:
"Pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
Maybe @Andrew Reid can start working on a NEW camera profile called a7SHD where we can give new Fuji, Nikon and Canon cameras those lovely green skin tones from the original a7S???

I think a list of IR filters have been posted here maybe page 331 or 332. Check Firecrest and Hoya among others

Oh I am not surprised it is pretty good. BMD has good Color Science that is for sure. And with ProRes, Raw it is a winner no doubt. Even at 12bit the Raw is some great stuff. And the bRaw thing ought to make it really useful. I still may look into it. You guys need to get some footage up on here for us to view.
I sold my Sony a7s and all my Sony lenses, battery grip this week. So I am in the market LoL.