I suppose I don't see the point of shooting RAW footage that can't be edited in Resolve.
Hi Stephen, I'm on the latest Intel Macbook Pro and use an eGPU to run four monitors, if counting the laptop screen, with an old-ish Vega Frontier GPU inside and I don't have any problems with 4K Canon Raw, but it slows down on the R5's 8K RAW if it's in an 8K Timeline, but runs fine in a 4K timeline (I'm on Resolve Studio btw). I've only been using the built-in Video Clean Feed on either my Eizo or BenQ monitors, which internally store their own calibration profiles, and it seems to work just fine like that. I haven't been doing anything with 5.1 audio yet though. Sounds to me like the easiest solution would be using that Mini with an eGPU, as long as it's not the new M1 chip, I don't think they support eGPUs yet. I understand why some people prefer working on Windows machines, but there are tradeoffs doing that too, as you well know. My work isn't as advanced as yours, but I've been so happy with Resolve so far that I'm plotting to rid myself of Adobe altogether. There are just a few apps on the stills and design side I use, but thankfully PP, Audition and hopefully soon Photoshop will be out of my life. I didn't mind Lightroom that much but the Adobe raw converter for Canon is the worst of all of them by a long shot. Anyway, I digress.
BTW I presume your Mini has TB3... I wouldn't bother if it's TB2 despite the purgewrangler hack. And the Razer X box with 100W power supply is best, I had bad luck with Sonnet, it wasn't supplying enough power to the GPU and would crash on high loads. Buying the Razer solved everything on that issue, it's been rock solid on a lot of intensive Resolve NR.
I also own one of these and it's excellent for a broad range of purposes. I also own an Eizo which I use generally as a monitor for Resolve, but I've found the colours between the two to be so close--even when calibrated with their different, dedicated softwares--that it's hard to tell which is "more correct," and overall the BenQ is in many ways a better monitor because I can watch full frame UHD footage at 100%, which is important as I generally denoise before adding FilmConvert grain, and it's large, so it's much easier to get a feel for the final image. It's a super sharp monitor and has a great matte screen finish. On top of that, it's great for things like proposals--large and crisp enough that I regularly have six pages up of my longer project proposals, which is inexplicably helpful. It also can store profiles so you don't need to re-calibrate with different computers, and its puck has been surprisingly useful. It's an all-around great monitor for many tasks, even beyond video and photo editing. I'm running four monitors (the latest Intel Macbook Pro using an eGPU) and the BenQ is my main up-front monitor, no question.
As a stills photographer (mostly), I got rid of my Sony A9 because of the inscrutable menu and color science that is (to me) inferior to Canon's. At 45 megapixels, now that I have an R5 (finally), I cannot imagine an occasion I would need more megapixels, or anything that Sony offers. Don't get me wrong, they're fine cameras and lenses, but the assumptions hat they're superior to Canon mystifies me. I also am highly suspicious of a soon to be released A9 shooting 8K RAW without overheating... their A9 is the lower megapixel sports camera. They've never even bothered putting a LOG profile into either versions.
Oh and don't forget breaking in all the reconfigured software we depend on. I made sure to get a good MBP before they switch chips, don't need the headaches of bugs and emulation. No thanks.
It's got in-body XLRs with phantom power, internal ND, hefty battery options and equally importantly, intermediary codec which is what the vast amount of people are shooting because RAW is usually impractical.
It is most certainly a legitimate pro cinema camera.