Shield3

I make a good living and was ready to hand B&H my CC# for one + the 35 1.8 and the 28-70 F/2.  I told myself I would not if the crop was worse that 1.4-1.5 in UHD.  Canon shot themselves in the foot again.

Canon is like the EX you broke up with a couple years ago - she comes back around every so often - you have a good one night fling and romanticize about the past.  Go out to dinner, talk about the 5d3 raw back in 2013, hop into bed.  Then the next day you hear she's still doing drugs - hasn't changed at all.    There's a reason you two broke up.

I wanted to be wrong here - haven't been excited about a camera for a while - I hate the Sony colors and overheating, hate Panasonic's shitty AF, etc.

29 minutes ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

It shoots 4K at 30 fps, but as with the 5D Mark IV, there's a considerable 1.7 times crop factor.  the EOS R does have 4:2:2 10-bit video output externally via the HDMI port (internally, it's 8-bit). That will give serious video shooters more latitude for color correction. It also has 3.5mm microphone and headphone jacks.

Yes, but are you 100% sure it's UHD out and not just 1080p out?  I don't recall any Canon bodies doing UHD HDMI out.

Up early this morning.  Good news and bad.

Bad news - crop factor in UHD = 1.67

Good news  - C-Log is available.

So your 28-70 F/2 in UHD mode is now a 47-117mm lens.  Puke.

Had my hopes up very briefly for this one.  I highly doubt it'll have less than a S35 1.5x crop in video mode, and also doubt more it'll have C-LOG.

I wish I could buy the camera today that Canon is going to release...in 2030.

I have toyed with buying this on launch day with the 28-70 F/2.  But this site brought me back to reality - it is probably the same sensor in the 5dIV.  Probably 1.74x crop 4k, no 4k60, No C-LOG.

Have to force myself to be patient.  The appeal of Canon colors, EVF, fully articulated screen and 28-70 F/2 is very strong, but too many times I've been disappointed recently with Canon (No C-Log on the 1dxII, 5dIV video codec and crop, 6dII was a joke, etc.

Hope to eat my words in a week.  Doubt I will.

On 8/9/2017 at 3:27 PM, Deadcode said:

Thank you for the test, very informative.

Did any of you noticed that the 1Dx Mark II's motion "candence" seem like it's much more fluid than the others? It's like 30p.

That's because it is 30p; a 1dxII conforms to 30p in camera when shooting 1080p120 (4x slowmo).  No you cannot change it to 24p either.

On 7/2/2017 at 5:52 AM, Oliver Daniel said:

Getting back on topic....

What exact camera setup does everyone find the most creatively liberating then, and why? 

I've been using an A6500 + Zhyuin Crane + mostly the Sigma 30 1.4.  Just watch the RS and the image is great. 

On 6/26/2017 at 5:17 PM, Andrew Reid said:

You know what I can't stand Mr Shield3, is someone who feels he can throw rocks from his armchair at a resource gatherer in the field, while he's trying to give you information about a range of cameras and lenses on his own blog.

Have YOU used the Sony 35mm F1.4 G? If so, why haven't YOU written a blog about it?

Or did you just look at DXOMark, and write it off without seeing a single image or the cinematic way it renders?

And to write off the Minolta line entirely because of screw-drive AF, you should write off the entire Nikon AF-D line whilst you're at it, yeah?

Here is the 35mm F1.4 G sitting on my desk... So yes I have used it personally. The reason I didn't respond, is because you were acting like such a negative muppet I gave up on reading the thread for almost a week.

As for A99 II being just a phase, I've put forward my argument why it is useful for my shooting style...

I don't need to justify it beyond that, not least to you.

There's some stunning A-mount Minolta glass. This 28-70mm F2.8 is cinematic as hell and half the price of a used Canon 24-70 L Mk I.

And the 28-105mm F3.5-F4.5 is good enough to resolve an 8K image wide open, and cost me £60. The full 42MP frame is uploaded to this post so you can see what I mean.

Shut up with the armchair criticism, buy some gear, and tell us about your opinion on it.

Who is throwing rocks?  Just stating the FACTS here, which is the 35 1.4 G doesn't get anywhere sharp until F/4.  I have owned a ton of Sony gear - A77, a99, a7s, a7r, a7r2, and a ton of Sony A Mount + Minolta glass.  I have been a gear whore much like yourself.  Just stating the facts that the Sony 35 1.4 G Minolta would never be considered "opticially excellent" by anyone with attached retinas.

I have a full time gig managing IT for a large gov't agency - I am not a professional shooter nor do I have time to "write blogs".  That's your thing not mine.  "Buy some gear"?  I've posted a ton of threads on here and elsewhere about the gear I've used, including Sony FS700's, 1dx2's, 1dc's, C100, etc.

If it makes you feel better to put down and argue with someone who has a dissented (and educated) opinion on the topic, so be it.  It's your playground.  All I see as a long time member of this site is you holding very firmly on your "opinon du jour" and insulting folks who disagree.  Next week you'll be into another body, and everything before it will be trash.  Then you can make some pseudo log profile or sell a how to guide.  It's fine if that's how you earn your living - nothing wrong with that.

But the F/3.5 AF limitation and "dying" mount is real, and screw drive lenses suck.  Whether or not one can work around this is up to them.

Have a good one.  If I have ruffled your feathers too much here by voicing an alternate opinion and not simply "ooh Andrew, you're right - I'll go buy whatever you suggest" then feel free to delete my account.  But don't be an asshole and tell me I'm sitting in an armchair not using gear and throwing rocks.  That's a copout.

Love, Shield3.

20 hours ago, MdB said:

Again you are talking nothing more than sharpness. Screw drive means nice linked MF with hard stops. Screw drive is also very fast and accurate. I rate every screw drive I own over STM, USM, HSM, SSM and fly by wire any day. 

As for AF, I'm sorry you rely on it so much and are obviously incapable of shooting any other way. Most people don't rely on AF for everything and while on occasion a nice feature to have, it's not make or break. 

Im sure nobody has ever shot a film with moving subjects with manual focus... ever  It's a total deal breaker. 

As for 'amateurish' how is shooting everything with AF not 'amateurish'? 

Personally the only time I use the AF is when shooting fast action using 120p. If you would like to point me to a better camera for that feel free.

Oh and clearly you're unaware that you can lock your exposure and set your exposure as you need it to be. 

Try and see beyond your own little world a bit? 

First of all, you don't know me or what I shoot.  One cannot shoot kids' baseball or softball and track players' movement without AF.  I tried for years - just too tough fighting exposure with ND, monitoring DOF, audio, trying to stay out of the action, keeping the rig stable and anticipating the action.

Not everyone shoots the same thing, and not all of us buy/use gear to be the next Martin Scorsese.  Not going to waste time typing to someone so obtuse.

Enjoy your F/3.5 Sony built in limitation, the ancient Minolta glass and the overheating.  I'm not suprised to find the typical Sony fanbois; they're everywhere.

17 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

Andrew must have an exceptional copy of the 35G or he likes the wide open softness this lens exhibits.

I shot the original A99 for awhile and it was the worst A-mount lens I tried out of all the G and Zeiss lenses. Every copy I tried was soft at apertures wider than f/4 - for me the IQ was just to poor, even at heavily discounted used prices. The 24-70 was clearly sharper at the same apertures, so that's what I shot with most of the time. In fact my copy of the 24-70 was so good it almost never left my camera in the 3 months I owned it. With the A99II bump to 42mp and actual 4k/1080p resolution in video its flaws will be more obvious. Its smaller and lighter than other 35/1.4's because its was released in 1998 and its optical design is not competitive with modern designs in terms of sharpness and aberrations, the E-mount 35/1.4 is a modern optic and far superior in every measurable metric - thus the lens is larger.

 

Don't waste your breath.  I would bet big money Andrew has never personally shot the "optically excellent" Sony 35 1.4 G screw drive lens.

Do note he hasn't responded back to my question of "Have you used it personally?"  The a99II is just another "camera du jour" for Mr. Reid - he'll find yet another new shiny penny next week.

16 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It does dim. A7R II, A7S II, A99 II... Try it.

You need to be in 4K not 1080/24p for it to dim.

It's not shit at all.

Lenses are not ALL about sharpness at F1.4.

Sometimes it's about rendering, contrast, character, distortion, ergonomics, size, weight, performance at F2.0, bokeh and functionality.

HELLO?

Hello? It's not even excellent at F/4, let alone F/2.  Have you shot this lens on the a99 II?

Here's some more good reading on this lens:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/35mm-f1.4-g-sal-35f14g/review/

For the price a lens this bad until F/4 is not worth the money.  Add in the "screw drive" and it'd be the last lens I'd want.  I had the 24/2 Zeiss though and it is nice, but this lens is in no way a replacement for the Canon 35L original from 1998.  I won't even bring up the version II as it would be laughable.

As for the a99 II - just can't get past the silly F/3.5 in video AF - it's a dealbreaker for those shooting moving video subjects and not setup / manual focus things.  Viewers notice the wide shutter and aperture changes too much - looks amateurish.

Wait, did he really just say the Sony 35 1.4 G is "amazing optically?"  This is easily the softest lens Sony has for the full frame.  It's ancient and shitty.

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/389-sony-35-f14?start=1

"The resolution is rather poor at large aperture settings and this is, after all, the primary playing ground of this lens. The situation improves significantly when stopping down to f/4-f/8 although very high lateral CAs can decrease the sharpness perception if not corrected. Distortions and vignetting are very well controlled, less so longitudinal CAs ("bokeh CAs"). Some users mention a very good bokeh (out-of-focus blur) but we failed to see greatness here (note: the quality of the bokeh goes beyond the sheer depth-of-field). The build quality is excellent and the AF is fast enough for most applications. All-in-all a lens which surely had its time but it isn't really prepared for the digital era."

On 5/1/2017 at 10:49 AM, Cinegain said:

There will be no such thing. I will gladly eat my hat if they release an A9R/S (luckily for me, I don't have a hat). It is a high-end photography camera. It's like complaing a supercar has bad fuel consumption and hardly any storage space. There's some things it is... and some things it isn't.

Keep your faith in the A7R/S-line-up I'd say. Saves you unnecessary spendage as well.

This is a poor analogy.  A sports car might go 200 MPH but you can't just give it Prius type fuel economy with a tune (firmware upgrade).  Sony could have added this if they wanted to; they chose not to.

On 5/3/2017 at 8:30 AM, Arikhan said:

Someone out there owning both lenses and experienced in video shooting? Which of these two would you buy? Are there substantial differences in IQ between the two lenses? 
Lens will be used at this time on a Sony A6500 (for video). Thank you!

I have owned both.  I kept the 18-105 - plenty sharp, more range, smoother zoom and focus rings, plus the power zoom.

2 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

No, nothing like that at all. Simple CAF with no intervention on my part. Again, I was trying to duplicate the outdoor shot that Max conducted in his first test when he went from a car fender to something further away. He also did a test from a bush to a sign. I did both tests in a similar manner with very different results. All I did was shut off custom AF and use 1-area. Ezpz.

When I'm actually shooting my own stuff, I will use AF lock when the subject warrants. I've done this with all my cameras, PDAF and contrast alike.

Yes I do the same with my c100 II - I have assigned the handle custom button to toggle AF.  So pardon me if I've missed this, but have your or anyone else simply told Max and/or the Photo guy on Youtube what settings you used?

6 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

Shield, no editing tricks. The reason the focus did what it did at the end, was that I inadvertently hit the shutter release to stop the video instead of the movie record button. That forced a refocus. If you don't believe me, listen to the audio. You will hear a 'click' that only occurs when you use the shutter release to end a clip rather than the movie record button.

On the first video, were you toggling any buttons, like AF/AE or half shutter press?  At the end of the day can I throw this on a gimbal with your settings and NOT have to touch the camera (i.e. set it on continuous AF and let it do it's thing?)

Ken (Ross) - I would love to see your first test done with faces instead of a lens filling 75% of the screen but I will admit it's far better than Max's tests.  I am more confused than ever.  The 2nd test was just a very slow movement test and it cut off at the end before it refocused on the background (not saying you intentionally did this - it just cut out before it was getting good).

Still, the first test had pulsing and was very abrupt, but still - far better than everything Max did with his human subject.  Again, more confused than ever.

22 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

I did the test in my house and never had an issue. And Max needs to revise his thinking about 225 point being the most horsepower, now that Panasonic is saying use 1-area. So yeah, I'm just crazy, I go out and shoot with this thing, 1-area AF, screw the custom settings, and have no AF issues whatsoever.

Ken, can you simply show us footage of your GH5 shooting a subject at F/2.8 (doesn't have to be 6" from the lens, but a reasonable distance to blur the background) and show the camera autofocusing from the foreground to the background?  I mean, if you "never had an issue" this shouldn't be a problem.  Very simple test, and tons have done it with a slew of cameras (see Philip Bloom's 3 part AF test).  In the real world shooting weddings one might need to AF between subjects that aren't close to one another, and showing us tests of you slowly moving from a street sign at F/16 to a car just isn't the same.

I get Max's "suddenly pop into the frame" tests are extreme.  But there is a middle ground, and I don't feel you've backed up your claim of "good AF" with the sample videos you've provided  in this thread.

So.  Put something large and contrasty on a table 3 feet in front of you.  Have a wall 2-3 times further away.  Show your GH5 focusing on the foreground subject, then the background, then to the foreground.  I can shoot something with my C100 to provide to you if this seems too complicated.  Don't need anyone suddenly popping in the frame - just a simple pan at a reasonably shallow DOF.  Thanks.

Despite starting this thread, I hope Panasonic sells a ton of the GH5's and all their other bodies.  You have to get behind any company that is giving you their all to COMPETE, along with being rock solid workhorses.  Never had any issues ever with Panasonic bodies.

10 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah I admit I am not in the least way excited about the GH5.  Heck I never had a GH4 either. Way more cameras I would buy, maybe a bit more money than the GH5 if I had 2000 bucks to spend.

There are 15 thousand dollar cameras out there for close to the same money used, that were 15k for a reason back in the day. They are a bargain in this day and age.

True, very true.  In fact the only reason I even started this thread was all the front page topics gushing over the GH5 and Andrew saying how Canon needs to get on the ball.  Canon is still #1 in the camera world, has excellent stills cameras and wonderful video AF - there's a reason you see them all over all pro sports venues.  Canon could release a camera with all the tech they have now and sell a billion of them - IE 80d body with a FF sensor, the EVF from the C300/C100 II, 305 M/bit codec, 4k60 and 1080p120.  You also know Canon sure as hell could make fast STM primes - their bread and butter are with stills photogs though who want the much faster USM focusing.

14 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Ah lucky dog. I was wanting a C100 mkII. Just sort of out of my Pay Grade as they say. Being retired it is pretty hard to justify it, but damn, if I was younger, working overtime, I would have to have one. You made a very good choice buying one. Grats. 

Yeah I am pretty impressed with the AF100. No regrets. Like I said, a great learning tool. And so is the C100. Kind of a no excuses cameras. If it is not good, it is because You are Not good thing.

Yeah I'm 43 and supervise about 25 people at the US federal gov't.  I don't drink or gamble and have a modest home nearly paid for with 2 kids (age 10 and 7) so I pretty much blow a ton of my extra income on camera crap.  I generally buy used gear and hold onto my glass much longer than bodies.  I've heard the phrase "you date the camera but marry the glass".  The AF-100 does blow out the highlights pretty quickly but for a well exposed scene it still impresses.  Just has that cinematic look especially paired with the Voitlander 25 F/.95 lens - you should at least pick that one up if you haven't already.

With a firmware update I thought the AF100 would do 1080p60 and have the over/undercrank option (both things the Gh2 wouldn't do, along with the usual built in ND and XLR audio, dual memory slots, and all the other bells and whistles of a "real" camera.

Another random thought off the top of my head - as I get older I find myself not doing things anymore that are a huge hassle even if it means a slightly improved result - i.e. bother with raw on the 5d3.  Sometimes the younger crowd will forego conveniences just to squeeze out a ton of extra IQ - just like back in the day we did to get our cars faster - I've had friends with 800 HP Mustangs that was stiff as a board and uncomfortable as hell to ride in - at my age I want the 300 HP car that I can take my family in.  Ultimate speed doesn't matter, and neither does ultimate resolution or detail.  Ready to shoot and easy to use goes a long way with me, so I'll reach for the camera with better audio, built-in ND and quick to shoot - not something I have to transcode, convert, grade (heavily) or dick around with for hours.  I'm old.

11 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

Yes, the GH5 does do 10 bit 4K internally.

I noticed you 'conveniently' left out 4K slo mo, IBIS and improved color science in your response. Instead you just focused on improved AF. The improved AF does work better than it did in the GH4 and that was the basis for my comparison. Some are also saying it's quite close to the A6300/A6500. I understand you're going out of your way to convince us (or yourself) why the GH5 just isn't that great. You're apparently not the target audience. 

Finally, yes, I can see a significant difference between the output of the GH4 & GH5. Apparently you can't, and that's fine. Can you see much of a difference between HD & 4K?  

I wasn't impressed with the 96FPS on the GH4 and I haven't seen anything that "wows" me about the 180FPS on the GH5.  The AF is just unacceptable in video mode even with native glass.

Can I see a difference between HD and 4k?  Hmm.  I have 3 UHD sets in my home that upscale everything to UHD.  So for really "good" HD (C100 II) vs. crappy 4k (Canon 5d IV) I prefer the upscaled 1080p.  Of course I can tell the difference, but there is so much more than just resolution and sharpness for good video.  Smooth glider shots, low angle, multiple camera, shallow DOF as needed, skin tones, story telling all are more important TO ME than absolute detail.  I am 20/20 at least in one eye and from a few feet away playing back 4k vs. 1080p on a 60" Vizio set?  No, I can't really tell the difference, and neither can anyone in my family.  My kids have perfect vision...so.

I will say years later the 240FPS of the Sony FS-700 still dazzles friends, so does the C-log on the C100 II and the raw 5d3 footage.  Same for the A7s in low light.  For me personally the GH2 and AF100 footage holds up remarkably too after 5 years.  I find 4k a bit of a bother - I'd rather shoot really good 1080p60 for action and 1080p24 with good colors for everything else.  Or setup multiple cameras - cropping 4k still won't give you a completely different shot.  But, that's me.

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh that GH2 stuff it a total line of bull. The Af100 has a way better Cine look to it. I have 200, hell 300 bookmarked things in a folder that say just the opposite. Sharp does not always equate to better, and the GH2 was not really any sharper. The AF100 can be made to look even sharper. It had a lot better sensor in it. That is not what a AF100 was, and still is not about.

Would you call a Arri Alexa a Sharp camera. I would not. The AF100 does not have a digital camera look, just like a Arri does not either. Not saying a AF100 is a Arri by any means, I wish!

But yeah, the AF100 was no beauty queen at handling highlights. That be true. But I have read a lot of comments about it taking 4 to 6 months of using a AF100 to get pretty good at one. That just shows how complicated it can be to use out of the box.

I completely agree with you - in 2012 I shot a ton with my AF100 and GH2, and IMO the AF100 was still better even with the hack on the GH2.  Something has to be said for the form factor, built in ND, superior audio, and the fact it was a 2.07 MP camera that didn't have to convert, line skip, pixel bin or downscale at all to get true 1080p.  I always enjoyed my AF100; almost as much as my c100 II now.

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It would be unprecedented for Canon to buck the video standards with 1080/75p.

That part of the rumour seems made up.

Could even be an attempt to make people reconsider their move to Sony or their GH5 order and wait for NAB.

Unless the 75fps is part of a variable-frame-rate mode with in-camera conform to 24p then I just can't see it happening and the crop is not just a software / firmware thing - the hardware needs to be capable of that 5K readout as well.

It's sure as hell not going to conform to 24 or 25p.  Lest you forget the 1080p120 in the 1dxII conformed to...30p only in camera without audio.

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You cannot claim a camera that shoots clean ISO 3200 at F0.7 is 'not that great in low light'

F1.2 on the Speed Booster XL = F0.768

I can't think of any lens sharp wide open at F/1.2 can you?  Even my 85 II is not wonderful wide open.

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Sensor dynamic range in the RAW files is around 13 stops, so same as the 1D X Mark II full frame 20MP sensor.

So not sure why you think DR is less due to the sensor size.

Because it's still physics.  All things being equal the smaller sensor will not match the usable (key work, usable) DR of a modern FF sensor.

They are touting the 12FPS.  A 300 2.8 is the bread and butter of a sports shooter's kit (especially for field sports.  This comment of mine was in regards to the photo side of things.

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The GH5 actually excels at telephoto because you can easily attain the equivalent of 800mm on full frame.

800mm!

(with the relatively small Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm)

Compare the real 800 5.6 size vs. at 100-400 at F/11.  It's a big difference in IQ and performance - there's a reason the 800 5.6 is $10k.

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I do miss the old body size and ergonomics haven't exactly progressed much but it's still a small camera and the extra features have to go somewhere.

You're welcome to have your opinion but there's not much of a factual basis for it.

We'll have to disagree here on the merits of my "factual basis" vs. your confirmation bias..  Glad to see you're so passionate again for the latest camera du jour.  I get it - I'm that way too sometimes.

12 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

Sure, if you're not excited about:

*4K60p

Had this on the 1dx II.  Is any of the 4k 10 bit in camera?  I don't think it is, but I'm not sure.

12 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

*4K slo mo

*IBIS

*Improved color science

*Obviously improved AF

Yeah for stills.  Does the video AF work any better, or even as good as the Canons or Sony's?  No.  Run and gun folks like video AF.

12 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

*Internal 10bit 4:2:2

*Improved low light that some say are in the range of an A6300

*Higher rez sensor for better stills

Then yeah, not much to get excited about.   (I'm sure I've left off some other things)

If you can honestly see a big difference between the final output of a GH4 and this, then you must be the target audience.  I'm just not seeing the big deal here, but that's me.

2 hours ago, Chrad said:

Not this shit again. 

It's only a quarter size sensor if super 35 is a half size sensor and super 16 is a 1/8 size sensor. 

Low light on this thing is actually pretty good - it's not the A7S but it's comparable to the A6300, A6500. Maybe a stop under, becoming noticeable as you get to the upper end of the ISO range.  

 

 

Only in terms of depth of field, but if you see the sensor size as a potential advantage that allows you deeper DOF for the same level of light transmission, then that can be an advantage. There's also a (admittedly very expensive) 7-14 2.8 lens from an Olympus, and a 7.5mm F2 manual focus almost-pancake from Laowa launches shortly. If you want to work with Speed Boosters a ' FF 18mm F1.8' is attainable with a 14mm 2.8 and a Speed Booster XL. But how often do you shoot at Ultra wide? There are a bunch of fast options for M43 from the 20mm on full frame and upward. 

I guess it just depends on what you're using it for. You have a point that the auto focus is weak vs the competition, and also about the body getting a bit big for micro 4/3.  I think that's preferable to a too small body that overheats. I'm guessing that the IBIS, 10 bit, high frame rates, etc necessitated a size increase from the GH4, along with the professional features they've added (HDMI and dual SD slots). 

If you're all about low light, a Canon cinema EOS or Sony A7s makes much more sense. 

Fair enough.  It's late here and I'm bored.  I guess what I'm saying really is the GH5 appears to have improved on something the series is  very damn good at already; "Super 16 esqe" sharp detailed footage and rock solid reliability with good battery life.

Shooting from a tripod and 24p and on a good 4k TV that upscales 1080 properly - I doubt many could spot the difference between the hacked GH2 (used price, $350) vs. this $2k camera.  That's all I'm saying here really - it's just more of the same stuff with added features that will not have much bearing on the final output.  I always thought the other GH bodies looked great already.

These high end m4/3rd lenses are pretty damn pricey!  Just wish Panasonic would have spent more time with their video AF - they are really lagging behind Sony and Canon here.  If you're going to tout the IBIS, that assumes handheld work (gimbal or run and gun - both which greatly benefit from something like DPAF).

I'll go against the current grain here and say it's a very nice camera with a ton of cool options.  The 1080p120 and 10-bit are appealing for sure.

However it's still a "quarter size" sensor that only does CDAF in video mode, doesn't have a built-in ND, does not AF that well at all with the Metabones, still not great in low light, much tougher obviously to get wide and fast (7-14 F/4 is like 14-28 F/8 on FF), dynamic range less due to sensor size, 20MP might be a bridge too far.

Don't know - if this was a native S35 sensor with PDAF in video mode I'd be much more excited.  I thought the GH3 / GH4 footage all looked pretty good, and I haven't really seen anything that much better or different IMO on the GH5. 

On the stills size even the .64 Speedbooster isn't going to get you that FF aesthetic no matter the FPS, and there's really no way possible to get anything to match what a 300 2.8 on a FF body (like a 1dx) will give you.  They'd need to release a 150mm F/1.4.

I personally thought the size of the GH2 made more sense - after all, this is micro-four thirds, right?

But hey, to each their own.  Just doesn't do much for ME.  Would I take one?  Sure.  Am I going to fork out $2k?  Nah.