Geez, why don't you tell us how you really think?

Vegas is used by myself and many others to create products that make money. I don't think it's used much by Hollywood for big-movie projects. Compared to other NLEs it has pros and cons. Many users say it is far easier and faster to do a sophisticated project in Vegas than in the other products. I've personally done a number of projects (for which I was paid) that involve multiple HD cameras, surround-sound audio, and color-correction.

I got off the upgrade bandwagon a few years ago so I can't speak to V13, but from what I can tell on this board V13 appears to have a very good reputation for stability and performance. But you are free, of course, to use whichever product you wish.

Seems to me, if you were using Vegas 20% and FCPX 80%, Vegas would still be worth the $149 upgrade price. Have you made $149 with Vegas since 13 was announced?

A LOT of Indies use Vegas.

What a troll. Gripes about Vegas, then says he 'only' uses it 80% of the time.

+1 riredale Vegas is used by myself and many others to create products that make money

unfortunately with the uncertainty surrounding vegas's future, and the excuse that is catalyst as a replacement i've started using (and rather liking) resolve.

my percentage is the other-way around nowadays 20% vegas / 80% resolve.

however there is nothing like vegas for fast culling and cutting.

Work with it every day, love Sony Vegas = a bit like being married to Vegas. both my wives are unstable when I miss behave.

Hollywood doesn't really use vegas, so who cares? I think the only hollywood film that used vegas pro that i know of was paranormal activity, which is technically an indie.

I'm not really a pro but I produced many commercials and edited a few corporate videos, then edited two feature films that received cinema screenings and cut a few shorts for festivals including 5.1 surround mixing.....all in vegas.

Nothing beats vegas when you're an indie, if you're going to work for a post house then you're probably going to need to know Avid, final cut or premiere.

At the end of the day, no one asks what you used to edit it on...except the techies

VP13-b453 is the most stable Vegas I have used so far. I believe instability with Vegas is about 80% poor hardware choice, or some other issue with memory timing, or motherboard errors. Remember desktop motherboards have little to no ECC, and are often cheaply designed in terms of conductor layers. Crosstalk, poor power supply regulation, bad/cheap capacitors, you name it can cause hardware to be unstable when a heavy video editing load is placed upon it.

The other 20% would be poor code issues with Sony. The Swiss Army Knife mentality of NLEs means all codecs need to be supported, and they all need to be able to intercut on the timeline. AVID used to require converting all footage to 1 codec to simplify application and hardware support. The test matrix for all the codecs that Vegas supports, and works on all the various levels of cheap hardware that people use it on is pretty amazing actually.

I believe edit stability can be greatly improved by converting AVC, .MTS. and other consumer formats to Pro codecs like HDCAM, XDCAM, XAVC-I. These codecs are probably debugged more, and are more optimized in Vegas. Even Cineform is likely more stable, though I have not used it much.

For me Vegas lacks only in real time preview capabilities (compared to Edius for example). If only Sony could improve this..
I have i7-2600, but often i cannot preview a simple crossfade between two mp4 clips, because of 5 fps.

For me Vegas lacks only in real time preview capabilities (compared to Edius for example). If only Sony could improve this.

Sony did imporve it, it just requires proper hardware. I used to have a i7-2600K system with a GTX460 and VP11 in 2011 and had no issue to edit a 3cam HDV 720 60p project in Best/Full. If you only have a i7-2600 that cant be overclocked then you just dont have the right hardware.

Even though I already tried using DaVinci Resolve 12 on one project..., I still prefer using Sony Vegas Pro 13 as it is much faster for me (and still comfortable with it).

Am I 'PRO' editor? well, I don't know how other people judging me..., but I just keep going with it for now.

Set

I do this for a living (so I think I'm a pro) and chose Vegas because its speed of workflow allows me to make more per hour.

I've had to do some projects lately for a facility that uses Premier Pro CC and wanted me to edit on site. I used it on both PC and Mac platforms and IMHO its workflow is still as flaky as ever. Everything from transitions to masking to titling are WAY behind Vegas' implementations. I find the color correction tools take much longer to achieve what I can quickly in Vegas (Adobe's interface for Curves in particular has always annoyed me).

A surprise to me was that it was a bit more stable on PC than on Mac. Average 3 crashes a day on Mac, and I could consistently crash it by cancelling a render.

Get the recommended hardware for the version of Vegas you're using and I don't think you're going to beat it for efficiency.

I have also used Vegas since Vegas Pro 4 and have also Edius as my "second" NLE.

I also have an old i7 2600K overclocked to 4.2 Ghz and supported by a GTX570. That works fine for a lot of HD-projects with Vegas Pro 13. And on such a maschine, the performance of Edius looks similar to Vegas. So that is fine.

However, for my new system, based on an i7 5960X (8 cores) overclocked to 4.2 Ghz and supported by an R9 390X I see the tendency that Edius becomes more superior compared with Vegas, in terms of preview capabilities. I am working in most cases with 10bit UHD footage now - and here Edius has the advantage that the 10bit modus in Edius is much faster then the 32bit floating point modus in Vegas. For 8bit footage it tends to be better, as long as we are not talking about footage like ProRes (what is a nightmare in Vegas but now very fine in Edius). Overall Edius has been optimized for highest performance also in the preview, and on new and fast machines Edius will tend to outperform Vegas really. Sorry to say so.

So in other words - this question depends on the specific footage but also if the GPU acceleration becomes important or not - what is fine in Vegas with an R9 390X even it the GPU is not used to its full performance, but Vegas brings the same performance even without GPU support at all.

Each NLE lacks in some areas. What did you find lacking?

The audio tools in Vegas Pro are unbeatable, try doing a full feature film mix in NLE's and you'll notice a huge difference. Vegas started as an audio editor and it inherited amazing audio features.

The right hardware and codec used makes a big difference. I had a good experience using cineform.

OldSmoke:
yes, with HDV mpeg2 everything is a lot easier.
But try this with an 50p avchd footage for example..
I don't think my CPU is weak. When a transition fps drops, cpu usage is still only 20-30%.. With the same computer Edius runs at full 50fps.

With the same computer Edius runs at full 50fps.

It may show you full 50fps but it may not show Best/Full preview similar to VP. Many NLE's tend to "cheat" in that area, Catalyst too by the way. In Catalyst you can change the way the preview works and once set to Full Frames it isn't any better then Vegas.

The 2600 is a weak CPU by todays standard especially for AVCHD 1080 50p and so is your video card if you are still using the Geforce 210.

Weak with 8 threads at 3+ GHz and big cache? I don't think so.
In fact Vegas stutter often even in quarter preview resolution, while Edius run at full speed, and i definetly can say the picture is better than Vegas (half).
Sorry. I still love Vegas just not in this aspect.

Sure, 8 threads are 4 cores only, and 3 Ghz is not too much. So that can be weak in Vegas - depending on what you wish to do.

So a lot of people tend to use 6 cores and something about 4 Ghz today. And combine that with one of the GPUs where we know that they support Vegas in a good way (ether older GTX 570/580/590 or AMD R9 390/390X).

I know it has 4 cores.
And it run at 3.4GHz actually. I don't think 4GHz would make a lot difference.
It't not even 20%.
Yeah, instead i should change my videocard for accelerate preview performance.
Or Sony should do a better job (which is not a possibility anymore)

I know it has 4 cores.

Oh yes it does make a huge difference. I run my 2600K at 4.3GHz with the GTX460 to get proper HDV multicam editing but AVCHD is far more compute intensive, especially at 50p or 60p in my case. Transitions also require a fast hard drive or SSD because two streams need to be read and computed doubling the load.

The 2600 Sandy Bridge has been outlived by Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell and now Skylake. A i5-6600 Skylake will easily outperform the 2600. But, your system would greatly benefit from a GTX570 or HD6970 which are easy to get a low cost.

"AVCHD is far more compute intensive"

Nobody sayed it's not. I just wrote, Edius can handle on my (old) system very well!
I search for a passive video card. Silent 570 or 6970 are exist?

I search for a passive video card. Silent 570 or 6970 are exist?

I doubt they do and such a card will require a good power supply, 600W-750W.

Edius can handle on my (old) system very well!

As I mentioned earlier, you may not "get" the same preview as in VP; even Catalyst is "cheating". I tested Edius and it was not any better then VP on my current system.