Chrad

If you want to ban someone for pointing out real log is different to your flat profile (which is really good and useful, btw)... Then ban away.... I thought you liked honesty though?

So not a video camera, really.
 
It's a bit of a gambit. I don't know why people in the market for an FF with amazing autofocus in this price range would pick it over Canikon, where they have the best selection of sport lenses and bodies that won't be a pain to balance them on. With the A7 series they at least had the street market down pretty well.

Why would Sony add 10 bit?
They're already number one in this segment. They know most people don't care.
Panasonic added 10 bit out to the GH4 only after they'd let their AF100  die. They were replacing both it and the GH3 with that camera.
Sony are doing very well with interchangable lens camcorders. Why mess with a good thing?
They are in Canon territory now - want pro video features? Better shell out.

The body is just ridiculous. I have trouble handling the D4 with the 200-400 f4, what's the Point of this Camera?

I'm reading a lot about this being a pro sports camera so just my thoughts as a working pro sports photographer...
In terms of speed, this thing obviously ticks a lot of boxes.
But its not just speed we need in terms of fps, af and evf refresh etc but its speed of the glass and the throughput of images.
Like any other manufacturer trying to usurp Nikon and Canon, the response to this in my particular field (no pun intended) - and it may will be different for non-sports dedicated photojournalist - is "Yep, thats very nice but where is your 400mm f2.8 ?" and "How fast can I review, select and get an image out of it?"
For the lens issue, honestly if they turn up trying to turn anyone's head with that 100-400 they launched today and offering it as the answer they'll literally get laughed at. 
I've shot with an f5.6 lens of course but its the very specialised constant aperture 300-800mm "Sigmonster" that only sees the light of day (quite literally) for very particular circumstances like Cricket or motor racing when there are range issues. For low light football, even in Category A stadiums holding  major finals, its a major risk unless you are absolutely sure that you can guarantee the light. For slow shutter speed stuff like profile shots its fair enough but not when you need to push the shutter speed for action shots. Even with bodies that do a gazillion ISO the end result can look rough. 
But its not just the light gathering thats the issue, its the subject isolation that a 2.8 gives you that you just can't replicate with a 5.6
So I'm baffled why they haven't brought out a 400mm 2.8 at the same time.
The image throughput is another issue and it remains to be seen how intuitive their image review process is but already one alarm bell is that I can't see an image lock button on the back of it. I've droned on at length about this on another thread but its a massively important function for ingesting only the relevant images out of a few hundred when you're in a hurry. And we're always in a hurry! If they haven't made that mappable to a function button then, like Fuji, its such a fundamental feature that you wonder who they've actually been doing any research with. 
With regard to the ethernet port. Well, yes, its a decent feature to have but if we've got an ethernet port at our pitch position (a bit of a luxury actually) then we have it connected to our laptops for two reasons. 1 - Its the laptop that is needed as a central comms point (it may be taking images from several cameras, its FTPing edited images, its receiving emails from agencies etc) and 2- We can't be tethered to the camera when shooting as its as dangerous as it is restrictive when you're working in these environments. 
I've attached a picture of my shooting position from a Champions League final (yes, the gap between the two larger gentlemen). When you are in such a restricted space and juggling two long lens cameras, while simultaneously editing  images on a laptop that is literally perched on your lap, the last thing you can be is physically attached to it. The cameras get totally abused in these circumstance with being dropped (intentionally sometimes) so cables are a no no. And, of course, we're never shooting with just one camera so there's no way we're going to be adding a router into this equation, hence we need a wireless module. Even if they are the ludicrously expensive ones like Nikon and Canon do.
The bottom line I suppose is if we can't capture what we can capture now and work the way we all work now then there is no compulsion to change, especially when there isn't a massively compelling price differential and the lenses that they do make that would be worthwhile (the 300 f2.8 and the 500 f4) are a lot more expensive than the equivalent offerings from Nikon and Canon. And thats before we get on to the fact that those lenses from the other two are battle hardened, proven pieces. Has anyone ever even seen one of those Sony long primes outside of a trade show? 
In their defence - and seemingly unlike Fuji - they seem to be taking a serious approach with regard to service levels that pros would need and I'm sure we'll see their presence at events with mobile workshops and equipment loans like Nikon and Canon do. This is a good sign but, again, they face an uphill battle here because even at regular events where there is no official support, you'll always be able to borrow something in an emergency off another photographer. So, if I need to use an ultra wide for an exterior stadium shot, for example, I can probably walk about 20 feet in the photographers room and cadge one for 20 minutes off another Nikon shooter. Not quite as easy when you're the only Sony shooter in the room!
So, if they're to do this (at least in my field and it could be very different for non sport shooting photojournalists etc) its going to take a lot of persuasion to get people to change. Just producing the body is the tip of the iceberg. I often compare this to what happened to RED when they thought producing the original RED ONE would let them take over Hollywood. Its everything else around the capture device that needs working on too and thats why they're many generations down the line and still on the coattails of the established dominant player.
There is definitely a market for a mirrorless camera to take over in my field but I still believe it will have a Nikon and/or a Canon badge on it.
The market for the goods we supply as sports photographers is shrinking financially and people tend to get even more conservative and will only switch when there is a major financial incentive. I just don't think Sony tick that financial box and its where Fuji might have an advantage.
The resistance to change is what they need to get over and for every sports photographer like me that wants to make a change there are probably at least a hundred that don't. This isn't a number I'm plucking out of thin air either. Next week, will be the first Premier League game that I've shot on a mirrorless system (the X-T2) and I would hazard a guess that its the first Premier League game that anyone has shot with it. Am I nervous about it if it will perform ? No, not really as I've run enough tests to know IQ wise its up to but I do have reservations about how much it will get in my way in terms of getting those images out. What I'm more nervous about is having to field all the "What the fuck is that?" reactions from the other snappers and the sneering about using a 'toy' camera.
Overcoming peer pressure is going to be a bigger task for Sony than overcoming EFV blanking to be honest.
I bet you its a fine camera though.

@webrunner5
Hmm...Never underestimate Canons and Nikons power in journalism or wedding market. Their brands as still cameras are very strong and they have very good and reliable devices. Sony is very innovative but though it has to learn built quality & usability from its competitors. Innovation and technical excellence are only two aspects in a very complex and competitive market hardly damaged by the "smartphone revolution"...Just my 2 cents...

skipping ahead to version 14?... like how some buildings don't have a 13th floor?

Give it an improved EVF and internal 10 bit 4K and I'm in. 
The ability to use MFT and super 35 format lenses on the same camera without adaptors is a great feature.

I think in a lot of the heavily graded films you cite, the skin tones are kept to an acceptable color while every other color goes nuts. That's the real talent of a world-class colorist. 

Voigtlander primes
SLR magic primes
Kowa primes
Olympus Pro zooms and primes
Olympus 17mm and 12mm

Rooting for them. Hope they blow the doors off the competition. 

I can't remember when I actually made the switch from being a consumer to being a creator. All I knew was that when I was a kid I was fascinated with TV shows, old Hollywood movies and European art house films, so it seemed quite natural to want to create something that would have a similar effect on other people. My parents bought me a second hand Standard 8 cine camera, on which I shot home movies and animated toys on the carpet. This was followed by a new Super 8 camera, which I hard-matted with cardboard to fake the look of CinemaScope. I didn't realise then how important the fun side of things was to me. By the time I went to art college I had a 16mm Bolex, which kind've slowed me down because the stock costs were too much for pocket money. I used the 16mm cameras at the college for the course projects, but never really used my own camera very much, and eventually sold it about 10 years later (it had become just a wonderfully built ornament on the shelf).
I followed my college friends to London and worked for a film and TV company for many years, working non-stop on TV series and that eventually wore me out -- I made a few personal projects along the way, but the joy of story-telling with film (as in those Standard-8 days) was just gone. I was also becoming tired of the city, too, so went back home where I can just go for a walk in the fields when I want to. I continued to work in multi-media, laying out books and magazines for a publishing house, then doing fine art printing for a gallery. I never forgot film making, though, because it was in me, but I wasn't doing anything about it. But then DV camcorder technology and affordable computer editing we're growing up together very nicely, and I was shooting just for the fun of it again. It was portable, it was cheap, it was available and eventually it was even full HD. And when the still cameras started recording video, well, there was a welcome filmic glamour to the video image that was quite exciting.
Coming more up to date, I was a full-time staff video editor for a small local video production company, though after five very busy years, I've since gone freelance. Doing much less work (and pretty broke as a result), but I have more time to work on my own projects. After an abortive start on one film, I'm currently making the props for another feature length no-budget project. I just can't seem to shift the idea that film making is something I have to do. I recently wrote a novel, based on a character from one of the scripts I wrote about twenty years before, so that was me genuinely trying another medium. And the freedom of writing, compared to all the hoops you have to go through even for unambitious and informal film making like mine, is quite remarkable. I've now written half of the sequel, so I must enjoy it, but, there's something about film making that really means something important to me. Perhaps it's because I like working with people on a collaborative art project, whereas writing is a solitary experience. Or maybe it's just that you never really forget your first love: Watching mysterious and surreal TV series like The Avengers, or 1940's American film noirs, and wondering if I too could create such atmospheres and involving entertainments.

There are few contemporary feature length films I find interesting. No matter if it's mainstream or independent (or just independently produced but aiming for mass market), the patterns of the narrations seem to be final by now. You can tell every variation and theoretically give them names (like Kansas City Shuffle? ), you can watch the storylines develop and always stay ahead, because you've seen them all. This is not "inherent" (Inherent Vice, that was a crazy film and one of the exceptions, PTA has the mindset of a 70's filmmaker who questioned everything. Thousands of good films from everywhere over the world from this period), it's because mainstream audiences demand mainstream entertainment, and films are expensive. Short films and series can be more daring, for different reasons. And docs too.
A novel consists of words. The story must be told in such a way (style, structure) that the reader sees his own personal movie. There is a word for this in german, Kopfkino, literally head cinema, when someones' words trigger an intense scene in your imagination. I'd say that reading a novel engages me more than watching a film, and not because the author is more talented than he filmmaker. Books are not too popular anymore, you'd write for very few. But unless someone exceptionally talented re-invents cinema and creates a mainstream masterpiece, you also shoot for very few.

It's a very social medium - people watch it together - and it is easy to share ones "product".
I once carved a wooden rocking horse. Looked rather good. But I could only give it to one person which I felt was an inadequate reward for not inconsiderable effort. 

I was trying to impress a girl,
 
Kinda wish I had become a stock broker instead.

It's visceral, literal, metaphorical, technical, and plenty of stuff in between. 

Funny to see a 100 pages discussion from which is 80% about Autofocus. At the same time, hundreds of video's are posted but none of them contain any production value. 90% is just baby- / cat- / house- / foreground flowers in focus / neighberhood video's.
Also telling is that nowadays many vloggers buying a GH5 for their work. It's funny and weird to see how the video market has changed from a majority of professional camera users, to 90% hobbyists, vloggers and rich people buying this cam to play with for a while before never touching it again.
Sorry, but i can't help the feeling of feeling slightly bad for all these spoiled little brats. If you can't or won't produce anything of visual value with this camera, then please don't judge it for it's AF capabilities. I have never used AF for video nor while I ever, and I'm not saying nobody may not or shouldn't, I am just pointing out what a bunch of whiners film makers have become.
We used to use gear which was highly impractical and inefficient and made the best out of it to satisfy our clients. Now we're shooting 4k in slow motion footage of our cat which moves away from us all the time or towards us, and complain that this stupid 2000 euro camera can't even hold the damn cat in focus.
This is not a complaint about EOSHD, where the percentage of sensible professionals is still pretty high, but about all the stuff I've seen lately on Youtube, Facebook and forums about this AF-talk combined with their cat- and garden video's.
As soon as I will finish some professional shoots with the GH5, I will report back here. Until then, I'm gonna leave the discussions up to you. Happy shooting.

I wouldn't even want to do a wedding with only one shooter...  Most weddings have two shooters filming it. (A few with 3 or more...)
But I understand if some low budget shoots might do it solo.
But for the ceremony and reception you absolutely want at least two more cameras rolling on a tripod. One a big wide shot to capture everything. And another tighter shot on the couple.
Then you'd roam with with your A Cam on a monopod, capturing all the juicy spontaneous moments.
If you can get more extra cameras... That is good too! Then you can put one tighter shot on Bride side and another on Groom side, and another pointing backwards at the guests.
I've shot weddings with half a dozen cameras rolling at once. 

I've shot heaps of weddings and I'd never go in with only one camera.
 
Thus I recommend the GH5 (or G80) as your A cam,  with a couple of G7 cameras on tripods for your B cam coverage
 
a6500 lacks this choice of excellent 4K cameras at dirt low prices which you can match easily to your A cam
While Panasonic has the G7

I might pick up a GH5, but definitely waiting for NAB to see what camera bodies are announced. A new A7s or something killer from Fuji would be intriguing. And I'd love to see more compact designs from Blackmagic. A Pocket-Micro revision or an Ursa Micro with a 2.3K slice of the 4.6K sensor would be kinda dope. I'd scoop that up in a heartbeat.

I don't think Panasonic anticipated all this fuss about AF, so the settings and the manual aren't that well thought out.
Frankly, neither did I. Can't believe the % of attention this camera is getting that's going into this. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about AF even if it could be a nice extra. I rarely use gimbal and can live with deep DOF or keeping appropriate distance and just tapping on my phone attached to my arm when I need to refocus. Now, with IBIS (which is truly amazing) I'll use gimbal even less as I don't mind slight handheld look most of the time.
FWIW, I think the Panasonic's excuse for not implementing PD focus because it degrades IQ is bullshit though. I reckon it was a commercial decision they had to make as clearly there is a limit of R&D that can go into a camera at this price.

It's a Vlog for people who also live mundane lives, they see Casey who has a slightly better mundane life than their own and aspire to be like him I think.
"Wow, that would be so cool to be Casey, imagine if boxes showed up at your house and you unwrapped them!",
"Casey was poor like us once, I can relate to that!",
"Look he has family he has to deal with just like me!"... etc. 
It is a reality TV program for the internet.

If there's no luxury to overexpose, I've found  underexposure of one stop or less on a moderate ISO to look pleasing on the Lumix cameras.

If there's no luxury to overexpose, I've found  underexposure of one stop or less on a moderate ISO to look pleasing on the Lumix cameras.

Yes, but it's just another way to distinguish oneself from peasants that are using their smartphone or Canon G7X II. 'Look at that shallow depth of field, wow that's expensive and impressive gear, (s)he must be damn good being able to afford that'. I'd say camera movement, using sliders/stabilization/gimbals is another hint of appearing (not neceesarily being) 'next level'.
Btw, I don't think Casey is selling out and allows manufacturers to force him to put out positive reviews (well, maybe Samsung a lil). I really do think that over time you just develop different wants and needs and having the oppertunity/means (btw he has cash enough to finance his gear, we've seen him breaking & purchasing gear a few times),  to check out the new next thing, who of us wouldn't embrace that? Like I said before, trying out the A6500 for run'n'gun field schtuff he's run into issues looking for the next best thing. He uses the A7RII all rigged up in a Tilta cage with a SmallHD monitor facing him, a set-up for a studio, not so much on the street.