Chrad

New camera in 'Noisy when severely underexposed' shocker!
Even at 3200 you're not near a clean exposure, what did you expect? Even the Alexa produces a grainy image when you starve it of light. 

New camera in 'Noisy when severely underexposed' shocker!
Even at 3200 you're not near a clean exposure, what did you expect? Even the Alexa produces a grainy image when you starve it of light. 

Well, your first comment indeed appeared to imply "yes, it's filmic but it's because the lighting, depth of field etc", so I think that was a fair target and frankly, I agree with a lot of what Andy says. However, I think you also have a point: even if you cannot express exactly what's wrong with the image, you don't have to, it's your perception why shouldn't you trust it. I respect that.
Myself, I am long since annoyed with this hype about "filmic/cinematic" image, which is a term that should never had been defined but of course now it is. It seems like lots of people have no individual vision of how they want their films to look, instead striving to emulate this "filmic" standard as the end of it all. It's also being universally implemented everywhere, including documentary, event coverage etc.. And there's a lot of snobbish attitude towards those, who care about different qualities and have different approaches, being deemed as "non-professional". You are almost forced to adapt the style to be competitive.
BTW, exactly the same thing goes for storytelling techniques and sound design == copy copy copy; copy is good; copy is professional; copy is cinematic. Form over content, level everything by overdramatizing and exaggerating at the cost of realism, logic, depth, subtlety and nuance.

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful.
Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white.
I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good."
You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move."
Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine.
I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me.
You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones.
If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun.
Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously.  And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

This is a gh5 with a pro colorist, looks very filmic 
 

Disclaimer: I dont have the camera, Im not saying its good or bad. I haven't watched Max, Kens or any other AF test. Personally I would never use AF anyway. Its to slow and imprecise for my way of doing things.
So this comment is not about the AF in the GH5, its about AF in general.
But, If it really comes down to "learning" how to use the AF its at least safe to say its not great.
Ive said the same thing about WB in Sony Slog. Some say it requires practice and testing. Bullshit imo. A $3K camera that needs special treatment for something so fundamental and simple as WB... thats just a bad WB.
An AF in a $2K camera that needs more fiddling than MF just to get it going... sounds like a pretty mediocre AF imo.
Again, not saying the camera is bad, so take a deep breath before defending. All AF is mediocre at best imo. I dont use AF on any camera. I hardly ever use it for stills (to slow) so I couldn't care less. I was just thinking out loud about what Ive read in this thread. 
There are far more important things to factor when deciding on a camera imo. AF in video isnt at the top of the list. In fact, its not even on the list.

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they?  I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.   

Obviously that "everyday life vlogging" is really big and to be honest, like most of you, I can't really understand the appeal. My girlfriend watches Jamie&Nikki a lot and I just can't get over how that's basically just watching two random people do their every day blah. They have a million followers who care  about what boring, regular things they do.
I mean, I can kinda get why people watch Jon Olson, he's at least a ka-razy semi-celebrity, blowing money and living the life, so you watch him do stuff most of us will never do (still working on saving up for that lambo). You'd also think there's only so many ways you could go about contouring but make-up how-to channels are such a huge thing.
At the same time you can see that usually production value is of no real interest to a lot of people. Same with Instagram, there's a lot of people with hundreds of thousands of followers with just the same composition of iPhone pictures over and over and over again. It's more about people's voyeuristic needs and identifying with the content creator than with the actual content.
 
When it comes to technology, I kinda get why less might be more. I wanted to see how the GH5 fares by looking at what gets uploaded to Vimeo and YouTube and by god, if I have to see another video that is 100% slow motion flowers / dogs / people shopping I will scream! It's approaching "cooking video with ukulele background sound" territory. It seems that a lot of people who care about "filmic, cinematic videos" exclusively produce camera test videos. Gear is the purpose in itself, there will never be any output. That's actually also fine as a hobby but there's the tendency that these people only criticize and never create/contribute.
I'm actually really re-evaluating what I want in a camera. Maybe I can do with "worse" image if it actually means I'll shoot more due to better usability?

What i like about these guys is they are out there doing.... The art/production side will come while they are out there, they'll likely instinctively learn and improve composition, lighting etc

It's just another genre. Neistat and Fine Brothers are the role models to this group. Note that The Fine Brothers managed to shoot a show for SHO a few years ago using consumer Canon pocket cameras. These guys are content machines. If they stop producing at ridiculous rates, their revenue and social stock can crash. That's fine, but it leaves little time to improve the art. It's what they want to do and more power to them. I have friends that are into this, and the have a love/hate relationship with it. Personally, have no interest in that mill. 

Also, I have almost no doubt their current path has a better chance to be more lucrative and notorious than the one I'm on, but the style of content-creators is not one that I personally would find creatively fullfilling or artistically worthwhile.
I like traditional movie-making too much  
"Content" will have a place, but I think overall it's probably just not for me.  

I know a certain video camera manufacturer with a proclivity to using industrial sensors and an MFT mount camera that is due for an update. 

I think everything up to and including ISO6400 should be considered quite normal generic territory. It's great the GH5 is now very capable at ISO3200. But that's nowhere near 'low light monster' levels, no? Go up from ISO6400 and every expensive Sony more or less handles ISO12800 as a champ. ISO25600, because why not... and only then are we starting to get somewhere in the monster levels... ISO51200, 102400, 204800, 409600! Absolutely unneccessary, but cool.
Think it's more for stuff like https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/multi-purpose-cameras/me20f-sh & https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-pov/product-UMCS3C%2FP/ . MFT would help considerably keeping the set-up small and stealthy, so that might be the whole 'why' around this.

Is it a three letter acronym that starts with B and ends with D? ;-)

I know a certain video camera manufacturer with a proclivity to using industrial sensors and an MFT mount camera that is due for an update. 

Emanuel, I think at times people are looking for excuses to not buy a given piece of equipment. Others are trying to defend equipment they already own by over-exaggerating flaws of new entries. I see this all the time and not just with cameras. It's human nature.

Small full frame bodies that can take any lens that covers the sensor. That's basically it.

Those small full frame bodies with big front heavy Canon/Sony/Nikon full frame lenses are a nightmare. Some times small is good, but sometimes small is bad.
Even Panasonic went out of its comfort zone to produce a truly great "pro" camera, this GH5 is BIG (and relatively heavy). More space, bigger batteries, better heat sinks, more buttons, better ergonomics, more reliable - hassle free machine.
There will be a Sony dSLR like mirrorless soon-ish, some things are tested through decades, and work for more than one reasons, evolution is good, but evolution is to take the good things and move' em forward.
Low light is great, but it isn't a panacea to everything but most people use it as an excuse for cuts in technicians, equipment, procedures. Video is not a lonely sport, it isn't photography.
Also, IBIS is not a panacea either!

They problem as I see it as that the GH5, on a spec for spec basis, competes with the FS5/FS7. In order to compete in pure capabilities, Sony would have to canibalize their own high end cameras. Don't get me wrong, that sounds great, but I just don't think it's probable. Plus, on a pure reliability/ergonomics/ease of use level, none of Sony's mirrorless line holds a candle to Panasonic's. 
Low light performance has reached the point of diminishing returns, frame rates are impressive all around, and everyone's sorted out internal 4K. The technology has begun to plateau, begging the question: how will everyone differentiate themselves? Panasonic rocks in ergonomics, bit depth, and stabilization. Canon has pretty color, lens selection, and DPAF. Sony still has the edge in extremely low light, but other than that...What do they offer over everyone else? 

I never expected the GH5 to outclass the A6500 in terms of AF and sensor performance, I mean, it's 4/3" against APS-C and although we've come quite a way since the GH4, we're not close enough yet and think it would be pretty unrealistic to have expected otherwise? In terms of dynamic range, high ISO/lowlight noise performance, thickness of color perhaps (although these last two improved quite significantly), MFT still needs a bit of catching up. Same for the AF systems.
But... you have to appreciate it for the right features. It's basically an ENG/Cinema camera unit, that can be used as such, which means it's super effective in controlled environments, yet, its body design lends itself superbly for on-the-go use. It's reliable, has tons of intergrated features... like really, what is not to love?
On top of that: the system is actually compact with tons of possibilities. That's one of the main reasons I decided to go with the GH2 over a T2i/550D/T3i/600D. Mirrorless means more innovation and MFT is the more compact system. Compared to Sony, the body, reliability and system compactness is still so much better. That's also why for me it wouldn't even make much sense to look at a 5DmkIII...

But, no IBIS, no 4K/60p, brick size, etc.
I think people are freaking out on GH5 flaws, really overestimating them. You can have solid stabilized outcome based on S35/FF look coupled to a Speedbooster bandinglessly on more than adequate color sampling and high bitrate for soon or with a monitor which is a recorder too, after all, for more less than 1,000 bucks.
What's the big deal here?
To understand the sweet spot on AF settings or use tap to focus when run-n-gun?
C'mon pals, pixel peeping can be dangerous if taken overdosed ; ) There's no other similar camera for the price. End of story :-)

Why commit to working in a challenging and uncompromised aesthetic when you can do something just as good without making a difficult artistic choice: camera tests! Wonderful 4K raw-shot camera tests of the gardens, parks and city scapes near 'aspiring filmmakers' everywhere, coming soon to Vimeo. 

While this is amazing, will no doubt be put to good use, and any democritization of prohibitively expensive technology should be welcomed with open arms...
 
...the elephant in the room is that if you can afford to do serious work with 4K raw, you can afford a more suitable camera that requires less hoop jumping than the 5Diii. The storage cost is astronomical. Even independent features with A-list talent choose to record in less space intensive formats for economic reasons.

Apples and oranges. It sounds like you envy the efficiency and technical acumen of those on this board who are shooting art in 4k for cheap when you're stuck meeting corporate demands at 1080p.
I work a lot on low budget national ads (I'm assuming they cost just under $250k/day per day on set, as that's about average) and even with big budgets for 30 second spots they lack the budget to shoot 4k and certainly to finish in 4k... because the infrastructure is "too big" to be a guy in a room doing all the post, but "too small" to be technicolor or light iron (which do most of the finishing post on the 4k stuff I work on). So yeah, I hear 4k and I run for the hills generally, and usually turn 4k gigs down unless there's a lot of extra money.
But... presumably most people here are working for smaller companies who can build their entire infrastructure around being a boutique 4k house, or it's just one guy or girl with enthusiasm for image quality out shooting art films. Imo, upgrading the infrastructure for network tv to go 4k won't happen any time soon, it's too expensive to replace that many moving parts and they just did it for HD. But smaller leaner companies like YouTube and Netflix are already all in. And individuals have been there for a while–smart phones shoot 4k, and some even display it.
Having millions of dollars and A list talent is a luxury I'd love to have. But not having it is liberating in its own way. When you're small enough, you have more flexibility in choosing your priorities. Personally, I would never shoot a project–not a short, and certainly not a feature–in 4k or RAW unless I had an unlimited budget and certainly not on a test bed hacked camera like this, but that won't stop those more ambitious and smarter than I am from creating great art without spending big bucks. 

Anyone knows what's the best way to get in touch with Panasonic regarding this issue?