Shield3

Andrew is in the throes of New Camera Mania (™) and it won't wear off for the GH5 until a new "pretty good" prosumer camera is released that has a lot of shortcomings but produces a decent image. 

After a weekend playing with the GH5 and 2 years of the GH4 I am happy with my purchase. Did the improvements warrant the hefty cost and the upgrade in general? probably not for me, as I am just an enthusiast who loves filming family occassions and taking his camera around with him whereever he goes. I am sure all the fancy stuff under the hood would be more noticeable to those using the gh5 to its limits for paid work. I was looking mainly for stabilisation as most of my work is handheld, and this camera delivers on this in leaps and bounds, especially noticeble with non OIS lenses. 
I purchased vlog and after some initial trials I am back to using standard profiles. I shot some standard footage over the weekend and showed it to my wife and mother in law , 10 bit 4k 150mb in standard profile and the first thing they both said is "wow look how amazing that looks...it feels like you are there!" Now these guys are not pixel peepers, and they watch my footage all the time and are used to high quality hd footage, but this change from the gh4 to gh5 was instantly noticeable to them, the humble viewer who normally wouldnt care if something was shot on an iphone or not!
Low light seems to be better as well, and with a bit of netvideo you can get really clean footage....
All in all if I hadnt have managed to sell my GH4 for £1000 I would not have been able to consider and\or afford the GH5. As it was though, it was a £700 purchase for me, I already had lenses so as it stands I am very happy!
 

To be blunt, as time has gone on and more footage has come out, I have begun to question my GH5 pre-order.

I think the compression of 10bit is just too much. I find my Blackmagic Pocket and Micro to be far superior thus far compared to what I am seeing out of the GH5.
Regardless, the form-factor and IBIS has kept my pre-order in place. For live-event work, it will be my go-to camera.

I have no intention of ever buying this camera but am probably more excited than many who are buying it; the reason being that the competition has to eventually step up to or surpass what Panasonic have achieved. It is an exciting camera for the entire prosumer audience in that respect, let alone those waiting to see what the a7siii has to offer when unveiled sometime over the next year.

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.

Same here, and I'm pretty much a Panasonic fanboy. I'll wait to see if Sony does anything at NAB, or whatever the next photo tradeshow after that is. And I'd like to see how the 400mbps firmware looks, as 150mbps is a little light for the high-motion stuff I shoot.
Ahhh, who am I kidding? If I wasn't broke I'd probably have it already

Just like any new camera I'll be waiting for the hysteria to die down and for detailed tests and reviews to be published before I even consider it.

As a GH2 and GH4 owner, I am not. I don't mean that as a slight, or that it's a bad camera. Far from it. It's an incredible value and the image is pretty good.
The IBIS, 4K60p and 10 bit are great. I just haven't seen much that really wows me in terms of mojo or color. It doesn't seem all that much better than the GH4, image wise. 
I shoot with the blackmagic pocket and GH4. Pretty much 100% of the time, I prefer the image on the pocket. Without that image quality or better, it's hard to get all that excited about the GH5. Even if it's jam packed with features. 

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.

I have a 70-200mm f2.8 II IS and just got a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM. The L is nicer, sure, but mostly it's just two stops faster. The plastic STM is much more stable for me. Better IS and much better balanced.
I'm blind to the enormous aesthetic differences you notice, I'll admit. To me it just looks slightly worse (bokeh fringe, cats eye, vignetting) and a lot slower.  No big differences in micro contrast or rendering. But the L is certainly a beast. Beautiful beautiful image, even wide open. 

"With these (f/1.2 native lenses) the GH5 is quite a low light monster and can easily go into a situation where you’d be pushing ISO 12,800 on a full frame camera. The low light performance quibbles people have over this camera are a myth, you just need the right glass."
So you stick a f/1.2 lenses on the GH5 and you got similar low light performance you would get on the a Sony A7 camera with a f/1.4 lens ? Um... Looks like Panasonic did some miracle on the GH5....
I'll wait until you spend some more "quality time" with your new baby Enjoy

And in my 2 years of owning the GH4 I still can't get the colours I want. That screenshot is a complete opposite of good colour.

Yes, but what about the skintones?

I have access to both cameras but refuse to buy a fake c-log picture profile. 

The C-log would be a welcomed improvement to the 5d mark iv imo. But it's not a deal breaker 
No disrespect to these user made log profiles. They are great but they just don't have the same kick as the C-log.
An improvement on the crop however would be a big bonus.
 
I think the log would be more appreciateon on the 1dx mark ii .
The 1dc with a dpaf improvement would be my deal choice, however I believe they are done with the camera. 
 

True CLog uses a log gamma curve using low-level camera data so maximum dynamic range and highlights can be preserved. A picture profile doesn't have access to the low-level data, so true log is not possible, and thus there is no actual increase in dynamic range. Boosting the shadows with the gamma curve in a picture profile can do bad things to skintones, which shouldn't happen with true CLog. A log-like picture profile might be helpful in high dynamic range shots such as outdoors by boosting the shadows before compression and Highlight Tone Priority to help with the highlights. Would test skintones in this case before an important shoot.

I created a Clog emulation in May 2016, right after purchasing the 1DX II. Along with Highlight Tone Priority (HTP) it appeared to be useful at first. However it became clear in production that skintones became challenging so I stopped using it (still use HTP). Actual Clog which isn't just a picture profile could be useful (highlights and preserving skintones), especially for matching other Canon cameras quickly. I was able to quickly grade GH5 log footage so a convergence on log formats that can be graded similarly is very helpful in production.
 
 

You have made a nice, flat profile.. A great starting point for grading... It is not log though and never will be... It cannot retain highlights and shadows like a true log file can.

As far as I'm aware it's only the Canon STMs that support face recognition. I have the 17-55 2.8 (which I'm assuming is the one you mean above) and the AF works great (if a little noisy) and the IS is a treat - but no face AF. I also have both the 18-135 and 55-250 STMs and they work perfectly and near-silently. They're reasonable lenses optically, with all the usual provisos, if a little bland; but if you're looking for something to throw on the camera and forget about while it does the work for you they're hard to gainsay. Obviously not the fastest glass out there, but the C100's (well the mk ii anyway, I haven't used the mk i) low-light performance means that upping your ISO a couple of clicks is a relatively pain-free experience in all but the lowest-light situations.

I don't know... no offense to anyone's opinion, we're all entitled to them, but who gives a shit what Andrew's political opinions are? Or mine? Or yours? Or anyone's?
Arent you the member who used to own an XC10 and D750... and if my memory serves me, you recently bought an F3? If this is you, you have posted some good work, focus on that and ignore the rest... or don't and let some random guy from the internet, who you obviously disagree with dictate your time spent on a video site...
I mean, I disagree with almost every dipshit, crackpot political theory I read on this site... from both sides of the aisle... it doesn't mean I cannot learn from their video experiences...
But whatever...

Just wish Canon would give the 1DC DPAF... 

Haha... the earth is flat too

Sorry that you feel sorry for being white. Sorry that you are offended by something that doesn't affect you. Sorr.. who am I kidding, nah I don't care haha. All countries are not the same. There are good countries, like New Zealand, and bad countries, like everywhere else. Anything to keep me safe is good. Apart from those nudy xrays at the airport - that's not cool - although I understand why they want to see my body, it's glorious. 

I have deleted and blocked 4 spammers in the last 2 days ! They do seem to be trying it on !

That's strange - with fast glass I found the C100 II to be better in low light, or darn near impercetable.  Please don't compare a 18-135 STM @ F/5.6 vs. the 5d3 raw @ 50 1.2.  We're talking 4.5 stops of light here - I'm sure most of the footage you've seen out of the c100 was with much "slower" lenses.  The c100 II was usable up to about ISO 8000 IMO, and the 5d3 raw perhaps 3200.  All depends on if you're exposing for the shadows, highlights, applying NR in your raw workflow, etc.
Just my opinion, but the c100 II is really, really good in low light.  Not A7s territory of course, but man.