Don Kotlos

If you compare the 2018 to previous gen MBP in some heavy rendering task you will see what everyone means by i9 being limited. The performance gain will be very small ~10-15% and in some extreme cases it can be worse as well. That is far from the ~50% performance gain that you would expect theoretically from using 2 extra cores. On the other hand, if you use a program that occasionally uses all of the cores at max for few seconds then you will see that performance boost. This is what the Geekbench measures and with which you can get ~50% better performance gain. As has been shown here, the problem is with the inability of the cooling system to get the CPU under 100C, once the wattage is >60W. Once you restrict the wattage to some level that the cooling system can handle, you can actually get a boost in performance. For example I did the cinebench test in which you can see turboboost for the first few seconds and then the throttling with some oscillations of the frequency: I then restricted the wattage to 45W: I also did the test where I allowed the wattage to go high for the first few seconds and then restricted it to 45W: That is ~35% better than the older generation MBP and ~12% better than the stock settings. Keep in mind that the boost in performance with the i9 when compared to i7 comes only when the CPU can use more than 45W. The Geekbench score for the i9 with the fixed 45W is ~20700 for the multicore similar to the base i7. So while restricting the wattage can be helpful in CPU heavy tasks such as scientific computations/video rendering/etc for the average usage when all of the cores are used for less than few seconds the current settings work fine. You can also see that with the 45W limit, the temperatures didn't reach 100C so in theory an even higher limit ~55W would work even better and which can get the performance gains close to the theoretical 50%. In short, the current macs do not perform as good as expected. I am confident that apple can at least provide some remedy with a combination of wattage limitation after few seconds + some tighter coupling of fan speed and the temperatures.

That is with the iMac Pro right? Depending on the source of the footage that can be a decent machine. For example with H264 a normal mac might be fine, but for demanding codecs like MJPG or flavors of RAW then it makes more sense to go with the imac pro.

I received a new macbook pro 15 yesterday. I suggest anyone that wants to upgrade from a >=2015 macbook pro to wait a bit or at least don't waste money on the i9 CPU. The throttling issues are a real problem and the performance improvements are tiny for heavy workloads in video processing. For photo editing it is much better and it might be worth the upgrade. There are plenty of throttling examples around, but here is one with FCPX in which disabling 2/6 cores improves performance! https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/18/how-macbook-pro-throttles-with-final-cut-pro-x/ Again I will stress out the fact that if you are into Resolve/Premiere and need a laptop you are better off with a Windows machine. If you really want to get the new macbooks for other reasons, then use this to speed up your fans: https://www.crystalidea.com/macs-fan-control

You are holding it wrong @jonpais ? But yeah ergonomics with A7/9 line is not great. It might be fine with a pancake lens, but once you put something heavy you can feel the extra strain in your hand. The battery grip helps a bit, but still nothing close to the ergonomics of the Nikon Dx/Dxxx lines.

You are going to drop $6.7K ? 2TB should be more than enough, and when necessary an external M.2 can be had for much less, no?

IMO there are better options available than the expensive blackmagic egpu with an outdated AMD chip. The only reason to pick this is if you have a thunderbold monitor. NVIDIA should be a better choice for Resolve/Premiere.

That is correct. It will work, but unfortunately the eGPU will not be used for rendering. That was not the case for older versions of macOS & FCPX, and I hope with maveric and a new version of FCPX this will change.

VA Released in the states: https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/usa-press-text-sony-releases-tweaked-rx100-va-with-boosted-performance/#disqus_thread No mic input but for many a better & cheaper solution to the VI

The eGPU is still a mess on the mac side even though Apple has started to support it officially. While the MacOS changes have made it easy to plug an AMD eGPU, FCPX updates have actually made the performance worse. Fortunately, there are still ways to use an NVIDIA eGPU on the mac, but it requires custom scripts (not that hard), and mainly using Resolve or Premiere. The new Blackmagic eGPU is a waste of money. I would strongly advise anyone against it since it is $700 for an old non-upgradable chip. If you want to go the eGPU route, get an enclosure and a GPU that you can upgrade. It will be cheaper & faster. I don't understand why they didn't use the Vega chip or even better 2 Vega chips. I think the main factor to decide on the computer is if you want to use FCPX or Resolve. Both have strong points and it is up to each user to decide. If you go with Resolve then there are laptops with better dGPUs (Razer Blade one example) and you can use an eGPU much easier. In few weeks I will have my hands on the new macbook 15 and I will do some tests with the eGPU.

Sony engineers made yet another "hot" camera. At least it won't be easy to get dirt on the sensor with that one.

Instead of going social, it would have been easier to just rent a professional cinema camera and try to imitate the look.

"The Sony RX100 VI is a truly compact camera, baring nice features, like the 200mm ultra zoom and tilted screen. But with a price tag of $1200 and very limited audio capabilities, I cannot see many Vloggers using it." https://***URL not allowed***/sony-rx100-vi-is-it-any-good-for-vloggers/

In the same boat as well, but what I am saying is that even though the Sony ticks all the boxes it might be a pain in the ass once you start hitting the 5'/overheating limit. Personally I have decided to wait for the LX200. But if I had to buy a camera right now with the primary purpose being video, I would rather give up something from the OP's list than get the Sony.

Born too early died too young. RIP NX1. May your footage live for ever. ?

I would be willing to use my phone more if I could find an app that downscaled the 4K to 1080p 4:2:2 keeping the same bitrate. Anyone knows an app that can do that?

I agree with the general Panasonic wave here. RX100 line might be tech rich but the 5' rec limit & overheating can be a real problem if video is the primary use.

You are right I was thinking of the uncompressed RAW.

I am all for open source, but the data rates of Prores are at least half of that of cinemaDNG Raw. Even if we take the efficiency of post-processing out of the way, supporting a 4K 120p data stream of cinemaDNG raw will be unlikely. With prores RAW you at least have a chance. But it doesn't matter, any of the two would be miles better compared to what has come out of that camera until now. My best guess is that they will not include any and within few months they will cut the price of this camera in half. And if they don't improve the quality somehow, it will be a hard sell even then.

Now with the new RX100VI, Panasonic should really bring the LX200 to the table in order to catch a segment of that market. I would go as far to say that the sales would benefit greatly if they stuffed it with all the GH5 specs, without that really affecting any of the other lines since this is still considered a point & shoot. That would be an instant buy for me even if it was more expensive than the RX100VI.

I can't say I am convinced about the output. Too much sharpening, harsh clipping. The 4K 120fps example is unusable. This camera would greatly benefit by ProRes RAW, and it could still fit between GH5s and BMPCC v2.

The sensor was the same 16MP of GH4. The lens just covered less area so you ended up with only ~12MP. To tell you the truth I wouldn't even mind if they used the 12MP sensor of GH5s but I guess for many the ~10MP stills would be a problem.

Nah I wouldn't say so. No internal 4K, no oversampled but aliased 1080p, slow f/4 aperture , tiny screen, no AF etc. And I was thinking something more in the line of Olympus TG5 style. Just with a much larger sensor.

Yep that camera is really expensive. If they had included a mic input and the fast f/1.8 I would seriously think of spending the cash, but as is , the camera is a hard sell for video. I believe there is still market for large sensor compacts. 1"-m4/3 sensors are quite unique in the sense that they offer the best balance between size & quality. For example an action camera version of the RX100VI with a fixed bright lens would be great as well. LX200 can't arrive fast enough. Add mic input and the new 20MP sensor and it should be enough. I wouldn't even mind if it offered oversampled high bitrate 1080p instead of 4K.

On the upside it shoots 24fps RAW !!!! But yeah the tradeoff of aperture diameter for range and lack of mic input is not good.