EphraimP

I'm one of the amateurs here; my job is TI, government company. Very, very lucky in the financial side - moved to home office since March 2020 (a thing that I would want even without Covid - ZERO needs to waste 1h30 commuting every day, and have more resources, like better monitors, than in my workplace), no income cutting, could stay safe.

Work exploded in pressure though - our team take care of two systems, one that demanded 95% of the work (10 people in the team), the other make a statistical report and basically ran once a year.

But this 5% system became used as the database of the government emergency money distribution, and now take most of the team (that is constantly making 10 hours day shifts). I'm one of the few that is taking care of the larger system - my workload almost quadrupled.

With a 2 year old that could not go to school (it opened this week, but opted to keep her in home - the Amazon variant of Covid is starting to spread throughout Brazil and already collapsed some smaller cities near here, in one week the ICU cases simply DOUBLED), my wife taking care of her (and not working), one of our cats dying and probably another one dying soon, and almost no outdoor / resting time, the head is melting away.

And I REALLY could consider myself fortunate - a father of a friend died from covid last week, several friends got Covid, even staying at home (none have serious problems, thank god), most of my friends are having VERY hard times to pay the bills. And we have a genocide president here that is doing almost nothing to get people vaccinated.

Just hoping to get through this with sanity. And moving out of the country when possible (Brazilians will became the parish of the world because of the criminal government) and when economy rebounds. There is no hope left here.

I'd say that's a bit of an overstatement. You may not need any of this year's new offerings, or last years. But you have no idea what other professionals are shooting on, or what equipment will make their jobs easier or what will help them book more jobs or sell more productions or help them boost their rates.
If you don't like the way the market's trending, awesome! Vote with your wallet. I won't be getting an FX3, or a A7SIII for that matter, or an FX6, a Pocket 6K Pro, or an R5 or an R6. But I'm not going to pretend that just because these cameras, or Panasonics offerings or any number of other cameras out there don't work for me, are not the right camera for someone else.
The whole idea of individual shooters determining what other people need is quite silly. Yes, the market might offer a whole lot of choices a whole lot more quickly than it did in the past. Some of it is pure marketing, as the FX3 seems to be. But a fair amount of it is due to more rapid technical innovation, some of it is due to market disruptors like BMD and the new breed of Chinese cine camera companies forcing the big dogs to compete on price and features. And some of it is camera companies scrambling to see what features and body styles will get a shrinking market excited.
In the end, we actually benefit from these new releases, if we're smart enough to weigh the options carefully and only buy what we as individual shooters need and can swing. That's the way I see it, anyway.

I'd say that's a bit of an overstatement. You may not need any of this year's new offerings, or last years. But you have no idea what other professionals are shooting on, or what equipment will make their jobs easier or what will help them book more jobs or sell more productions or help them boost their rates.
If you don't like the way the market's trending, awesome! Vote with your wallet. I won't be getting an FX3, or a A7SIII for that matter, or an FX6, a Pocket 6K Pro, or an R5 or an R6. But I'm not going to pretend that just because these cameras, or Panasonics offerings or any number of other cameras out there don't work for me, are not the right camera for someone else.
The whole idea of individual shooters determining what other people need is quite silly. Yes, the market might offer a whole lot of choices a whole lot more quickly than it did in the past. Some of it is pure marketing, as the FX3 seems to be. But a fair amount of it is due to more rapid technical innovation, some of it is due to market disruptors like BMD and the new breed of Chinese cine camera companies forcing the big dogs to compete on price and features. And some of it is camera companies scrambling to see what features and body styles will get a shrinking market excited.
In the end, we actually benefit from these new releases, if we're smart enough to weigh the options carefully and only buy what we as individual shooters need and can swing. That's the way I see it, anyway.

I'd say that's a bit of an overstatement. You may not need any of this year's new offerings, or last years. But you have no idea what other professionals are shooting on, or what equipment will make their jobs easier or what will help them book more jobs or sell more productions or help them boost their rates.
If you don't like the way the market's trending, awesome! Vote with your wallet. I won't be getting an FX3, or a A7SIII for that matter, or an FX6, a Pocket 6K Pro, or an R5 or an R6. But I'm not going to pretend that just because these cameras, or Panasonics offerings or any number of other cameras out there don't work for me, are not the right camera for someone else.
The whole idea of individual shooters determining what other people need is quite silly. Yes, the market might offer a whole lot of choices a whole lot more quickly than it did in the past. Some of it is pure marketing, as the FX3 seems to be. But a fair amount of it is due to more rapid technical innovation, some of it is due to market disruptors like BMD and the new breed of Chinese cine camera companies forcing the big dogs to compete on price and features. And some of it is camera companies scrambling to see what features and body styles will get a shrinking market excited.
In the end, we actually benefit from these new releases, if we're smart enough to weigh the options carefully and only buy what we as individual shooters need and can swing. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Shoot Arri, get more jobs, sell more productions, boost your rates. Simple.

Yeah, I'm over Matti and Peter and that whole crew of YouTube influencers with their increasingly worthless camera "reviews" and their endless blogs about their hipster lifestyles. Back in the day they actually posted useful videos about shooting and editing techniques, plus their shtick was new and interesting at that point and not totally played out. 0f course, I've come to learn that some of their tips, like how to conform 60p footage to a 23.976 timeline were ass backwards and causing problems with a proxy workflow. 
Gerald Undone, on the hand, is still pretty good on his reviews. I did watch his review of the FX3, and it's pretty spot on. It hits a lot of the same points as folks on this thread have brought up, including that the biggest real differences between in at the A7SIII are the tally lights, lack of viewfinder, button changeups and the handle with integrated XLR module. He makes a great point that if you are a video first shooter who doesn't really care about the EVF and does care about XLR mics, than the FX3 is a bit cheaper than the SIII and an XLR module. Other than that, it's pretty much the same princess in a different dress.

This guy and a few others are actually really good I agree.

They are lifestyle channels now. I swear all of Matti's camera "reviews" are the same video. They all follow a script and marketing material with nothing added except their lifestyle stuff.
Yes, Gerald at least is still releasing quality information about products without unnecessary hype, most of the time.

Yeah, I'm over Matti and Peter and that whole crew of YouTube influencers with their increasingly worthless camera "reviews" and their endless blogs about their hipster lifestyles. Back in the day they actually posted useful videos about shooting and editing techniques, plus their shtick was new and interesting at that point and not totally played out. 0f course, I've come to learn that some of their tips, like how to conform 60p footage to a 23.976 timeline were ass backwards and causing problems with a proxy workflow. 
Gerald Undone, on the hand, is still pretty good on his reviews. I did watch his review of the FX3, and it's pretty spot on. It hits a lot of the same points as folks on this thread have brought up, including that the biggest real differences between in at the A7SIII are the tally lights, lack of viewfinder, button changeups and the handle with integrated XLR module. He makes a great point that if you are a video first shooter who doesn't really care about the EVF and does care about XLR mics, than the FX3 is a bit cheaper than the SIII and an XLR module. Other than that, it's pretty much the same princess in a different dress.

Why I rarely watch YouTube pieces such as the one linked above.  It tells me little and it's primary purpose is to sell the camera for the manufacturer, and increase subscribers and viewers for the vlogger.  Even the useful ones that tell me something tend to make me cringe with their same 'what's up Guys' style.

The micro HDMI on my Mavic 2 Pro broke as well. That one was user error on my part (I tried to plug the charger in the wrong way) but they are pretty fragile and break without much force. Luckily it was easy to swap out the board that the port is on at home. I'm not so sure it would be easy to replace a port on a camera. If you are using micro-HDMI ports on a camera, I think it's critical to use a cage and clamp, both to protect the cable and port and also to make sure you don't have the cable come loose during a shoot.
I agree heartily that cameras that can't host an SDI or full-size HDMI port should go to something like a USB-C port that's reversible and stronger.

The BMP4K weighs less than the mag on an SR3! A 105mm with no shoulder rig and multiple points of contact won’t end well. 
The balance, weight and ergonomics of the rig are huge factors to how smooth the shot looks.

Thanks so much for the reply (and thanks everyone for letting me go off topic). Yeah, definitely redundancy. Thanks again.

Belt and suspenders baby, belt and suspenders. I definitely use lavs. Whenever possible I use a shotgun as well.
If we're not too far from vehicles and doing a formal interview, I have boom a shotgun over talent from a c-stand or light stand. I've drafted people who are part of the group I'm interviewing but not being interviewed at the moment to hold the boom, under the camera's site line. It's almost guaranteed that they'll move the boom up into the frame of the wide angel at some point, but I typically shoot in 4K for a 1080 timeline. I've even held the boom myself once or twice, while running cameras and directing the interview; that's a pain in the ass.
If we're doing a moving interview or I'm filming people in their natural habitat, as it were, I'll run a lav on talent and an on camera shotgun. In these situations the lav is usually the best sound, but it never hurts to have multiple tracks to choose from.
The biggest problem I have with booms in the field isn't usually how to get it over/under talent, it's wind noise or other atmospheric noise like highway traffic or river noise.  This winter I finally got a Rycote blimp. It's supposedly for Rhode mics, but of course it fits my Deity S2 perfectly. 

There are lots of interview situations that don't call for a chair, or where one isn't even possible. I, for instance, shoot mainly doc-style pieces for environmental nonprofits as a solo shooter, which means 70-85 percent of my works happens outdoors, in the field. Thus, standing interviews are a must almost all the time for me.
And even if you tell someone to stand on a mark and not move their body too much, most of them are going to move in some way or another as you get deep into the interview, especially if you get them comfortable with the camera and really into what they are talking about. And if possible, I'm running two cameras in these interviews, so I can cut between different angles to add interest to the piece and hide cuts that would be obvious I only had one camera angle.
 
If you are trying to get non-pro subjects to say scripted lines, I find you're going to get a pretty wooden delivery most of the time, no matter if your subject is sitting or standing. As a former journalist, in my experience I get much better results if I do a traditional interview and get my subjects really talking about the topic at hand, even if I have some very clear bullet points of information I need them to say. I find getting people comfortable enough with the camera that they forget in the moment that it's rolling is key to getting an good clip. People getting animated and moving around a bit and talking with their hands gives me the most impactful interview material. Basically, if I can film interviews that feel like the subject is just talking to someone (off camera) with all the normal ticks and motions and conversational gestures people expect in a real conversation, the end result is many times better than having someone say scripted lines to the camera.
And there are lots of times in doc work where you want to see your subject moving around while talking. It doesn't have to be an interview necessarily; you might want your subject inspecting a logging site or in a burnt-out forest and talking about what they see, or walking along a river that's the subject of your piece telling a story that is relevant to your video. Or maybe you want your subject talking while driving or riding in a car to an important destination, or through a critical scene. Or you might be recording a protest or town hall meeting or some other live event where you can't direct who is speaking or how they are moving.
In all of these situations, having really good AF-C, especially with face tracking, can be extremely helpful for a single shooter or a small crew without a dedicated focus-puller. And none of them has anything to do with what a pack of self-referential YouTubers recommend or another dreadful blog about someone making coffee or riding a One Wheel around Toronto or LA. They are real-world situations that professional shooters encounter every day. If they are not situations you shoot in, great. But it would be silly to discount them.
Is perfect autofocus a must? No. I do a lot of manual focus in these situations. But solid autofocus is a valuable tool that shooters like me want access to. It definite factors into my camera buying decisions. It's not the only factor I consider, but I'd probably rate it higher than a lot of other features such as RAW shooting or open gate/true anamorphic modes. It just comes down to what each individual shooter prioritizes in their work. In the end, none of the cameras out today are perfect, but it's awesome that we have so many choices and so many key features and jumps in quality are filtering down to sub-$10K and even sub-$5K cameras.

There are lots of interview situations that don't call for a chair, or where one isn't even possible. I, for instance, shoot mainly doc-style pieces for environmental nonprofits as a solo shooter, which means 70-85 percent of my works happens outdoors, in the field. Thus, standing interviews are a must almost all the time for me.
And even if you tell someone to stand on a mark and not move their body too much, most of them are going to move in some way or another as you get deep into the interview, especially if you get them comfortable with the camera and really into what they are talking about. And if possible, I'm running two cameras in these interviews, so I can cut between different angles to add interest to the piece and hide cuts that would be obvious I only had one camera angle.
 
If you are trying to get non-pro subjects to say scripted lines, I find you're going to get a pretty wooden delivery most of the time, no matter if your subject is sitting or standing. As a former journalist, in my experience I get much better results if I do a traditional interview and get my subjects really talking about the topic at hand, even if I have some very clear bullet points of information I need them to say. I find getting people comfortable enough with the camera that they forget in the moment that it's rolling is key to getting an good clip. People getting animated and moving around a bit and talking with their hands gives me the most impactful interview material. Basically, if I can film interviews that feel like the subject is just talking to someone (off camera) with all the normal ticks and motions and conversational gestures people expect in a real conversation, the end result is many times better than having someone say scripted lines to the camera.
And there are lots of times in doc work where you want to see your subject moving around while talking. It doesn't have to be an interview necessarily; you might want your subject inspecting a logging site or in a burnt-out forest and talking about what they see, or walking along a river that's the subject of your piece telling a story that is relevant to your video. Or maybe you want your subject talking while driving or riding in a car to an important destination, or through a critical scene. Or you might be recording a protest or town hall meeting or some other live event where you can't direct who is speaking or how they are moving.
In all of these situations, having really good AF-C, especially with face tracking, can be extremely helpful for a single shooter or a small crew without a dedicated focus-puller. And none of them has anything to do with what a pack of self-referential YouTubers recommend or another dreadful blog about someone making coffee or riding a One Wheel around Toronto or LA. They are real-world situations that professional shooters encounter every day. If they are not situations you shoot in, great. But it would be silly to discount them.
Is perfect autofocus a must? No. I do a lot of manual focus in these situations. But solid autofocus is a valuable tool that shooters like me want access to. It definite factors into my camera buying decisions. It's not the only factor I consider, but I'd probably rate it higher than a lot of other features such as RAW shooting or open gate/true anamorphic modes. It just comes down to what each individual shooter prioritizes in their work. In the end, none of the cameras out today are perfect, but it's awesome that we have so many choices and so many key features and jumps in quality are filtering down to sub-$10K and even sub-$5K cameras.

I've been running a machine with a similar spec for a year or so, 3950X with 64G ram and a card upgrade to a 2080 Super. No experience with the S5/S1H though. I do edit H.265 files from an M2P and H.265 files from X-T3s and T4s, which are both 10-bit 420. Doing simple edits to a few clips is fine, but I find the machine gets cranky if I am really layering the H.265 files and doing color grades plus heavy effects live warp stabilizing. I agree with @fuzzynormal that proxy editing is the way to go. It's pretty simple and quick to load your batch of files into your Premiere project and then batch create proxies. If storage is an issue, you can trash all the proxies when you finish a project and just remake them if you use the footage again at a later date.

Ninja V is your pal.

It’s statements like this that have made me step away form this forum. It seems every forum post is some over dramatic hyperbole reaction or continuous anti canon pitchforks (I wonder why?). How can we have a serious conversation when people like you are saying the pocket 6k destroys the c70? It is the same camera as the pocket 6k - with a tilt screen and 6 stops of ND. That’s all it takes to “kill the C70”, which was being hailed 24 hours ago?  The pocket 6k has BRAW over the c70. The c70 for the 20th time has a better sensor with more DR. The c70 has a better battery. The c70 has significantly better auto focus. The c70 records to dual SD cards. The c70 has a significantly better mount, with a speed booster that turns it into full frame. Wether any of these points mean anything to you or not, is besides the point. Even if you find the pocket 6k better for you because it has BRAW is besides the point. The point is that saying the pocket 6k “kills” the c70 is ridiculous. We live in a time where none of these cameras kill each other. A7s3, pocket 6k, c70, etc. are all amazing tools and in the right hands you’d be hard pressed to find folks that can even tell difference. I’m out. 

That's a very good idea. I'll have to talk to the client about whether this works for the project, but it would solve the problem and help bring context to some of the pieces we're going to use.

I'm here all week - tell your friends!

 

Their expectations about the color grade, that's a good one.
The more I think about it, the more I realize I'm beating myself up over nothing. This client is currently having me edit short videos sent in by authors and musicians on random phones and cameras in random resolutions (lots of 720p, even 960 X 540 or 568 x 320 for crying out loud, in a 1080 timeline). Some of the video landscape, some is portrait. Half is shot way too dark so the noise is insane. They don't notice, or don't seem to care.
Their pain threshold for video quality is really high.
Mine isn't. That's why I was worrying. I shouldn't. I'm not going to really mess with WB or levels too much with this one. It should be fine.

A buddy of mine who shoots Sony emailed about this camera talking about how I'm going to be into it for a cine camera and how far ahead Sony is going to be than everybody else. NOPE!
This form factor for a "cinema" camera is a big nope for me. At least the C70 is big enough to include a lot of function buttons and (mini)xlr inputs right on the body. And it has built-in NDs. 
Putting a pre-amp several inches above the body and out over the lens? Yeah, that's going to help stabilize my footage. I'm not a big fan of mounting recorders like the MixPre 3 or pre-amps under a camera, but it sure is better than this. 
I'm assuming this one is going to have Sony's e-ND system. It better, that's the only place Sony IS actually out ahead of everybody. And this box is definitely going to need real IBIS. Problem is, to this point Sony's IBIS is what, third rate. From everything I've read here, it's miles behind Panny's excellent IBIS and not even as good as Fuji's, which can be pretty good if you learn how to use it correctly.
I'll pass.

I have my T4 programed the same, with the front bottom below the shutter button and dial programmed to switch between IBIS mode. If I remember mode I have turned on when I start to shoot it's great. My 18-55 F2.8/4 lives on it, so that's about 27-82 mm with added IOS stabilization.

Not really a fan of the design personally. Balance seems poor. No EVF, no IBIS. It better have a eND or I just don't see why you'd favour this over an A7S3. Is it even FF? I guess too many unknowns to really judge..