Emanuel

The ergonomics are one of the most enjoyable things about the X-H1... And the responsiveness. Much prefer it to X-T2.
It is closer to an NX1 in handling terms.
I am getting used to the drive selector by shooting stills in Film Simulation bracket mode, which is right next to movie mode on the lever.
That stores the raw still, as well as 3 JPEGs with different looks. So in my view, a handy feature!

But didn’t they said it is customised for a specific company not for consumer product? 
Plus the size of phantom 5 is too big to travel, mavic strike the perfect balance of travel and doesn’t look like toy compare to mavic air 

Yes I tried it on this footage but avisynth fixed aliasing much better. For noise it's king though.

Have you ever tried  Neat Video? I have found it does help with anti-aliasing some. It is not it main goal, but it seems to make about anything look better. I admit it can make some stuff too good if you are looking for a filmic look! But you can adjust it to your liking.
No plug in for Resolve though.
https://www.neatvideo.com/home

Yet more shite footage.
Wait for mine instead 

Here's a bit of a review after using the X-H1 for about two weeks, both in a hobbyist/family setting and in my more professional workflow (video production is part of what I do for a living). As a caveat, I wouldn't consider myself a pro video guy, though. I'm a hobbyist who turned video into part of my full-time income. I started a company called 'Worship Tutorials', and a youtube channel is a big part of it - I do a lot of video work (probably 3-6 uploads a week to YouTube), so while I'm not doing work for clients, and I don't have a pro background, video quality is important to me. I also realize that the limitations I encounter are almost purely coming from me, not the gear.
Background
I've been using Sony bodies for about the past 2 years. Before that, I used Blackmagic stuff - Studio 4k bodies, and then an Ursa Mini 4.6k. That was overkill. My church used to use those, and I loved what they could do, but the workflow for me (working on my own pushing out that many videos) just wasn't good. So I sold all of it and jumped to Sony. First with an a7S ii, then the a7R ii (as a 2nd body), then I sold both of those and went with an a9 + a6500. The colors on the a9 are far, far better than the previous gen. a7 stuff.
My frustration with Sony is color. And it's a huge deal to me - I believe color is one of the primary emotional pieces of video. And I hate the way Sony handles color. I do realize, though, that the IQ is there - plenty of people create beautiful work with Sony a7-series bodies, and I finally got good enough in post to make stuff that I thought looked great. But it's always a struggle for me - I feel like I'm always fighting for the colors I want. Then I started reading about the X-T2.
So I rented (and then purchased) an X-T2, and honestly I loved it. I loved the handling, the physical controls, and especially the colors. Even still images in Lightroom were easier to get what I wanted (with the Sony raw images, I still felt like I was forever fiddling to get the colors I wanted). In video the image was just more pleasing to me. But it lacked things I really wanted - 120p slow motion, IBIS, smooth gradients from different light sources when ISO was set to auto, better auto-focus, etc. The Sony system was just better spec'd. Plus by this time I had invested in the 24-70 G-Master and the 70-200 G-Master lenses from Sony. These lenses are incredibly good. I returned the Fuji, but I've missed it.
So another year of fighting with Sony footage, and then X-H1 is released. Again I rented one, and now I've purchased one (along with the 16-55 f/2.8). Several of the key features I wanted have been implemented - IBIS, high frame rate, etc. But to me, again, the killer feature is color, and with the introduction of Eterna, Fuji's color superiority is even better.
Pros/Cons - Fuji vs Sony
Over the past two weeks, I've shot a lot of video and stills side-by-side with my a9. Here are a list of thoughts...
Auto-focus: The a9 (and presumably the a7 iii) is better with AF. Much better. But honestly the Fuji isn't bad, and it's good enough for what I do. This may be a make/break feature for some, though. High frame rate recording: Sony is better here again - the 120 and 60p footage is cleaner. But I've shot a lot of it with the X-H1, and it's certainly not bad. If you avoid things that you know are going to give you aliasing and moire problems, you'll be fine. For me, it will work. Dynamic range: Again, the nod goes to Sony, but it's very close. Especially if you use the 200 and 400% settings on the X-H1. Low Light: Sony wins here. Full frame, plus their magic with high ISO is hard to beat - honestly does anybody beat them? The X-H1 is acceptable, though. Honestly at 10,000 ISO it's a pretty useable image. We are spoiled with ISO performance. Five years ago (and especially 10 years ago), ISO 3200 was the top you could go, and many cameras looked like crap there. IBIS: Fuji is better in my opinion. Handling/ergonomics: I like the Fuji better - a lot. One thing I do like about the Sony cameras is the ability to set up custom presets for 4k 24p, 60p, and 120p (that's how I set mine up, anyway), and be able to instantly recall shutter speed, frame rate, and aperture in one move. On the X-H1, it's a 3 step process, although it's very fast after some practice. Lenses: Tie (but not if you consider how much they cost). The G-Master lenses I have are awesome. But they are very expensive, and big/heavy. Fuji lenses are very good and very affordable. And finally, the most important things - for me, personally...
Image Quality: Fuji, by a lot. Now I agree with Tony Northrup's assessment of the 2x IQ thing, regarding stops. I get that technically, the Sony sensor is able to resolve more light, etc. I get that I can shoot at lower ISO's with the Sony, so from a noise-perspective it's cleaner. But when I look at footage shot side-by-side from both cameras, I pick the Fuji every single time. Especially when shooting with Eterna. It's not even close. Workflow: Fuji wins. Because the image is so much better out of the camera - for my tastes - the workflow is much faster. And at the rate that I make videos for my business (as well as candid home videos of family, etc), it makes an enormous difference for me. Even things like render times are way faster, because I'm doing much less manipulation to the image. Emotional impact: Fuji wins. I love using the Fuji system more. Because of my experience with the X-T2, I think I can say it's not a honeymoon thing, too. Although the a9 is a ridiculously awesome camera to use. I really do love it. The other emotional impact thing is the image quality - and I think the fuji wins here, too - because of color. Final thoughts
The 'best camera' doesn't exist. Some are better technically than others, some produce a certain look that users may or may not want. Some lack features or have an abundance of features, but honestly the quality of work that is produced is going to lie with the person creating the work. These days cameras are so good that I don't think it matters what brand or model you use.
The Sony stuff (especially the current gen stuff like the a9, a7R iii, a7 iii) is better on paper than the X-H1. There's no question. Is it better in actual use? Depends on who's using it. Personally, I think I could create the same quality work with either system, but I'm convinced the X-H1 will get me to the end goal faster. For you, it may be the other way around.
Finally, I think the internet can be a toxic place for people who are looking to buy gear. People come into these discussion with biases, or they are far more concerned with spec's on paper than anything else. Personally, I'm actually kind of upset at myself for even considering switching from my Sony gear to Fuji - at some point I/we just need to ignore all the hype with new stuff and just make content - and get better at using the gear we have.
Having said that, I'm probably going to sell all my Sony stuff and invest in Fuji, although I still have about two weeks where I can return the Fuji and keep my Sony gear.
Sample Work
Here's a video I just produced using the X-H1. I did about 6 takes of this song from different angles (which is why I need at least two cameras for what I do - three would be better). Edited/graded in Resolve. I shot it in Eterna, and honestly I did very little to the image. Just a tweak with white balance and contrast/saturation to taste. With my Sony cameras, this would have required 4-5 nodes using a LUT, color manipulation to lows/mids/highs, skin tone isolation/correction, etc.
Another video I made with the X-H1, more heavily graded:
Here's a very similar project (to the first one) using the Sony a9 and the a6500 together: It's a bit different look, and I like it. But it took a lot to get there.
Here's a video I shot with the X-H1 - again using Eterna, and graded in Resolve:
And another with the a9, also graded in Resolve:
I know there are lots of people probably trying to decide between the X-H1 and the a7iii. I'm one of them, so hopefully my experience can help you make that decision.

I just bought the X-H1 in Barcelona whilst I'm taking a break, and I am more impressed with it so far than I thought I would be.
I'd say it is a genuine alternative to the GH5 and A7 III, given the similar prices of all 3.
It does things the Panasonic and Sony don't do as well, or differently enough to make you have a strong personal preference for one or the other.
First of all, the small things... You can assign 1/48 shutter for 180 deg to "T" on the shutter mode dial. Instantly go from auto to 1/48 in the blink of an eye. Very useful.
The e-ink top-display is very useful and something the GH5 and Sonys lack!
One of the bigger things is the quality of the stabilisation.
It's insane. I actually think it might even be better than Oly/Pana. Steady handheld shots are almost completely locked-down as if on a tripod. Even walking glides are perfectly doable. Slider-style moves with your arm come out well.
This is one area where it is FAR superior to the Sony cameras, and it has a larger sensor than GH5 yet possibly even better 5 axis.... THAT is unique.
F-LOG and Eterna seem superb... I am not missing 10bit. Skintones, codec, all very good especially at 200Mbit which is insanely high for an IPB codec. Would be nice to have an ALL-I option but I have a feeling Fuji will do a BIG firmware update in future.
The EVF I think is superior to the Panasonic and Sony side.
I dare say the AF is better than the GH5 too, though not as good as A7 III / A7R III.
The tiny Fuji primes are wonderful, esp. 23mm F2 WR and the 35mm F1.4.
It is very responsive... recording start / stop doesn't have any lag or weirdness.
I still dislike that movie-mode is on the drive mode lever, it should be a single button press to toggle between movie and stills mode. Firmware?
Stills side is stronger than GH5. The mechanical shutter is the best I have ever had in anything. So quiet and dampened. Mega satisfying! Of course, larger sensor than GH5 and better JPEG colours (Fuji film simulations).
I wish the further X-T2 style crop in 4K was not a thing... but it's no biggie, and there's Speed Booster for X-Mount.
I wish the quality of the 1080/120fps was a little better... but it's a very nice creative tool. Plus you can access it instantly through a func. button.
On paper, A7 III and GH5 are better.
In reality.... it's game on.

Long but informative review:
 

I would 100% agree with this statement. I haven’t used the GH5, but I have lots of experience with Sony, including full frame and APS-C bodies. Eterna alone is a massive factor in my opinion.

Warning the following review may be too positive for some, you have been warned:
 

Ok, so here we go :
My only battery had 66% left, so I could only record 1 hour and 50mn.
The temp in my room was 21/22 °C
Results : NO OVERHEATING AT ALL Neither warning sign.
 
Of course, results under the sun might be different, but I'm quite satisfied.
I'll do a longer test with a powerbank later.

What was the point of shooting at 60fps if you weren't going to conform it into slow mo? There is no other point in using that frame rate as 30fps is plenty suitable. 
@dbp
Samsung doesn't sell mojo. They sell technology. The mojo is up to the person behind the camera. 
It's a cellphone with a suitable point n shoot camera slapped on the back of it. The smartphone has very little to do with the premise of a phone in the traditional sense. What they truly are is tiny computers with phone capabilities. 

I'm afraid they would even charge much more if they would call it Mini-Eva... LOL
So, GH5S is not actually a bad denomination choice to state it quite frankly and pretty straightforward.
I am personally done with smartass manoeuvres from business players trying their best to go and get deeper from my indie pocket. Nuff said, Panasonic is usually a decent brand. Even though, that premium fee is not the best signal under such policy. IMHO that's a business mistake. So, in this perspective because 2500 bucks for this outstanding machine it is still a bargain anyways, I am really not surprised with the clientele reaction on GH5S sales.
With IBIS, focus hack results (AF mantra has been a sales distaster IMNSHO) or changing contrast AF with DFD technology for a most accurate autofocus proposal indeed and the same price of GH5, this camera would be a terrifying hit, count on it : ) 
In any case, it is the best cinema camera out there for the price, no doubts on it.
If you can only buy one, buy this toy and you won't have buyer remorse at all but a purchase which will heedfully convert in your utmost investment to date. Dare yourself and you'll see the real meaning of this statement, not only virtual words somehow addressed in any tech forum ;-)
Don's fully right... This cinematic device is the best tool available nowadays to shoot a feature with. At this price range and hybrid (I'd rather call GH5S 'handy' : D instead) class ride.
E :-)

People on eBay right now when they try to outbid EOSHD members for used NX1's.
 

Yeah I dont think they ever tried to emulate exactly with Acros, velvia, etc. Its more a naming thing with a hint of those stocks character.
And I also agree on the less need for post to save skin approach. I gave up dialing down contrast and saturation a long time ago. My philosophy is that someone have spent alot of time and money on the baked in curves. And they are probably a better starting point than what I can get.
On fuji I usually pick a look in camera and only do minor luma tweaks in post. Looks great imo.

Well that was the guy who hacked the GH2... I assume he has some contacts?
As deezid said, the 6K anamorphic mode seems to have less in camera sharpening... so with a good downscale, you can probably get some cinematic 2K/3K. 
Now I only shoot 1920x810 2:35 on my 5D3, so I agree 1080p is usually more than enough. But with the GH5... the softer 6K anamorphic with IBIS is definitely a selling point that the more expensive GH5s cannot do. 

The 6K mode on the GH5 is actually less sharp (sharpened) than 4k. It looks smoother but shows more detail if that makes sense.

Guys, please stop :X Let the thread go back to the right track, OK? (to be sincere, playground is more than enough, as well the leftover going along with extra downvotes polluting other threads too... thanks for your understanding : )
 
 
 
 

@webrunner5 It is a miracle, you've perfectly nailed it with your American English, but don't blame the Fuji device, buddy! People kill people, not the tools ; )
I don't think people see Fuji's as their savior in any way other than as matching their tiny agendas by their inner own. On the other hand, Fuji has no high-end to protect other than their medium p-h-o-t-o-g-r-a-p-h-y format. A feature takes ages to comply. We live in hurry times. People have no time to read, why should they have time to go beyond easy LUTs? :-D
 
Ditto & Amen : ) Don't forget Panasonic brand is known by their innovation and prosumer approach, extending their high-end abilities to their minor offer if we can call it so :X

All about plausible deniability isn't it ?
I might go with "Remember when said I fancied an iPhone X dear? Well, good news, I've found something cheaper so I'm actually saving us money here".
Although 3D cats could actually also be just as  effective.
I was thinking about the GoPro fusion as VR does fascinate me but if I'm going to flush money down the drain on something with a completely uncertain adoption fate then it might be better to be in on the ground floor of something new with the Hydrogen.
Although by the time RED ship it, I might only exist in virtual holographic form myself!

Let's give 2nd look on that test a chance...
People generally have that idea. Banding depends on the bit depth.
That test leads to a bit different path though.
Actually, it is even beyond color sampling, also bit rate.
That is, not only bit depth.
 
Practice redefines theory much often to keep going to ignore the evidence : ) Mark's @markr041 posts hinted it all :-)

Nominated 14 times - finally got one in the bag!
 
Congrats Rog! (not that you needed this kind of validation - your  and your crews work speaks for itself)

@Kisaha I agree with you. But please let's not compare color science between manufacturers! IMNSO people tend to understate this important aspect of making pictures. Just sayin' : )
FF look or similar is nothing but also a full combination of lots of aspects, optics included. Add an inexpensive f/0.95 Mitakon, only as an example, and you'll have it on APS-C format as you well know it :-)

Torteloni with sausage. Had the pineapple while waiting.
And now to a productive afternoon fiddling around with a camera!