padam

@wolf33d The Panasonic will not be out anytime soon... if ever with those specs. Keep in mind these are rumors and they are rumors about a prototype. Remember seven years ago when Panasonic showed that prototype organic sensor? Well we are still waiting on that one. So I would take any rumors with a grain of salt if looking to buy into a system in the near term. Also, a GH camera with those specs would render the EVA1 obsolete.
@mkabi Comparing the X-T3 to the 1DXMk2 is a bit strange to me. The Fuji is a great camera with great build, but I would never consider it to be a replacement for the 1DXMk2. For me it is a wonderful little travel camera, whereas the 1DXMk2 is a workhorse. I just got in the Fuji today, so who knows my opinion could change, but I really doubt it's going to. If you are planning on getting into a system, there is nothing at all wrong with Canon's flagship DSLR. 
As for the A7S3... is there not a rumor that Sony is planning to kill that camera? For myself, I don't buy rumors... unless we are talking stocks. When it comes to cameras I buy what is actually available... because, there will always be something better rumored... that's the point.
 

I feel like I've said this way too many times here, and people probably think I'm just trolling bc no one ever responds to it- when I spent a week with the X-H1, I found the ibis to be almost unusable for video, unless you are standing completely still, way to jerky otherwise. Has this changed, or is this not your experience with it? I would possibly return my X-T3 and go with the X-H1 if I thought the stabilization had improved (I'm coming from past GH5 ownership so I'm spoiled in the stabilization department and prefer good stabilization over 10bit if I had to choose), esp since, knowing Fuji, the X-H1 may get some of the X-T3's features at some point through firmware.

Here are a few thoughts on the Mavic 2 after a week or so of use. Mostly points that I have found that dont seem to get much mention in the youtube stuff.
1) There has been no firmware update so far for Crystalsky monitors, so you cant use the Crystalsky with the Mavic 2 yet. Pretty disappointing for an expensive accessory.
2) For some inexplicable reason DJI has removed quite a lot of the intelligent flight modes that were on the original Mavic Pro. The two that I used a lot - Course Lock (great for panning) and Waypoints are both gone.
3) Theoretically you can pan the camera from left to right (unlike the Mavic Pro) but in practice this has fairly limited practical use because the props get in your shot.
4) So you are likely to shoot quite a lot of video while flying left or right which is fine apart from the side obstacle sensors dont work (unless in intelligent flight mode or tripod mode.)
5) The DLog-M 10 bit h.265 profile is a huge step up from the Mavic Pro and is great in post. Unfortunately, the footage in DLog has horrendous lens distortion. Its easy to fix in post but rendering h.265 is pretty slow. (I am wondering whether it is best to transcode first for Premiere Pro.)
6) I like the 2.7k 60p footage. It is FOV and I assume pixel binned - so isnt the most detailed - however the 60p really helps smooth out the footage.
7) I never used 'autoexposure' with the Mavic Pro because of exposure flicker but I havent noticed any with the Mavic 2 when shooting shutter priority.

Nah its accurate. Believe me. Im a Sony fanboy and Fuji shooter. I review all of them.
If I review a Sony all is well.
If I review a Fuji I get attacked by Sony Fanboys.
If I review a Pentax or Nikon I'm attacked by Sony and Fuji Fanboys.
If I review a Canon... all hell breaks loose since even Sony Walkman fanboys attack.
I base this on receiving and reading 26 090 comments over the last couple of years. Just visit any forum and see for yourself. For example checkout the thread about the EOS-R on EOSHD.
 
 
 
After my 6Dmkii review I had to block some really vicious people that weren't attacking just me but also people commenting on the video.
And not about specs. We are talking threats and in general things that would lead to a punch in the face irl.
The weirdest thing was they weren't all anonymous. They actually used their business accounts...freelancers, production house employees using their official accounts... 

One thing I noticed about YT microphone reviews (from people who don't know much about audio) is that they tend to be judging the EQ of the microphone instead of the quality of the sound overall.  I'd hear a microphone and think it would be fine with a bit of EQ and then the person would say something like "it sounds thin and hollow - not even usable!" and I'd just roll my eyes.
@IronFilm is this something you also see across lots of reviews?
In a way it's like filming in RAW and then saying the camera footage looks "too grey - not even usable!!".

waaaa happened?  drama!
I miss the days of ebrahim and his quest to use a stolen slr rangefinder from the eos marketplace forum to buy a ps4

That's actually not true, maybe it is sometimes, but is it mainly dependent on the optical design itself. Oh, and the glass looks a bit fancier both on the specs sheet and in real life... I am sure Sigma could make even better f/2 ART prime lenses for instance, but people would just say 'meh, too expensive but not faster'.
Generally speaking, you can design a much higher resolving lens (especially in the corners) with lower geometric distortion and far less aberrations by opting to use a slower aperture (the increase going into extreme F-stops is actually monumental). The vignetting might be more significant, but that can be corrected. This is exactly why they went with f/1.8 Z primes instead of faster. Other casing point is the Leica 50/2 APO, which still sets the benchmark (although all the rest they made is not far off in absolute terms).
It will be interesting to see what the 58mm f0.95 can do.
I have to say, while the 35mm f/1.8 looks very sharp, I don't find the rendering anything special in these early samples. Only seen thumbnails from the 50mm f/1.8 so far.

That's actually not true, maybe it is sometimes, but is it mainly dependent on the optical design itself. Oh, and the glass looks a bit fancier both on the specs sheet and in real life... I am sure Sigma could make even better f/2 ART prime lenses for instance, but people would just say 'meh, too expensive but not faster'.
Generally speaking, you can design a much higher resolving lens (especially in the corners) with lower geometric distortion and far less aberrations by opting to use a slower aperture (the increase going into extreme F-stops is actually monumental). The vignetting might be more significant, but that can be corrected. This is exactly why they went with f/1.8 Z primes instead of faster. Other casing point is the Leica 50/2 APO, which still sets the benchmark (although all the rest they made is not far off in absolute terms).
It will be interesting to see what the 58mm f0.95 can do.
I have to say, while the 35mm f/1.8 looks very sharp, I don't find the rendering anything special in these early samples. Only seen thumbnails from the 50mm f/1.8 so far.

I have more experience with the Mk I than Mk II (a lot more) but the low light on the Mk I is outstanding and I understand it's much better on the Mk II (due to more in-camera NR). If you expose properly and boost your ISO rather than trying to underexpose and push the footage in post, which is a mess with AVCHD, you'll have a usable image up to 20,000 ISO and a great image up to 4000-5000 ISO. So I would say a massive improvement over a Canon dSLR, but still significantly worse than an A7S for low light (where I would consider an f4 zoom fast enough). The A7S is much cleaner at extreme ISOs but smudges color more so it's a bit subjective which is preferable in medium low light, but I think the A7S is pretty clearly the extreme low light king.
I think you could get by with the 24-105mm, but I never found the 24-105mm great (granted, I was using it on FF) and I find the 18-135mm USM with the rocker zoom a lot better for crop. Constant aperture is less of an advantage if there's no rocker zoom, AF is worse, and it's not parfocal, so I wouldn't dwell on the one-stop advantage on the long end. If you have access to the 18-135mm and to the 24-70mm f4 IS, you're more than good for slow zooms imo.
I had two 17-55mm f2.8 IS lenses, but sold both. They're very useful but a bit old, not optically up to the latest. We put one up against a $50k Angenieux zoom and the Angenieux was much much better, but by f4 it was close enough. I think the newer Canon zooms would compete better. But I still slightly preferred its image to the 24-105mm. The  24-70mm f2.8 is also good zoom range to complement the 70-200mm and adequately fast, but poor for small spaces and terrible for real estate; I used the version one on a C100 and I liked it, but it could have gone wider. For me the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, a 50mm f1.8, and the 70-200 zoom make a great kit, but you have to be okay with swapping lenses. For documentary use or short form narrative I'd say that's an ideal kit, but for videography or news the 18-135mm Nano USM is far preferable. But imo the 24-105mm feels redundant with, and generally worse than, the superb 18-135mm Nano USM (I just sold one but I loved it while I had it, though I found the zoom rocker really cheap). 
If you have the money and don't need wide angle, the 24-70mm f2.8 Mk II is sick and might be the lens that spends the most time on your camera. Great image. Haven't used one myself but worked with someone who had one and was really impressed with the images and ergonomics. Can't vouch for the AF, though. Lack of IS is not a big deal with it since it doesn't go that long. I remember I rented out my 18-35mm Sigma as part of a kit and the DP refused to use it and went with the 24-70mm f2.8 II IS instead. I think the image is even better with the 24-70mm than with the Sigma, but both of those are outstanding lenses and the trade offs between them will depend on personal preference and brand loyalty. The Canon has better build quality, though, will last much longer imo.
I'd wait on a new lens until you're familiar with the camera.