Fritz Pierre

Sorry...typing mistake, I meant "but as my 12-60 already gets me so wide"...I would recommend that if possible you try the Leica 12-60 at a shop...you will be surprised at how wide 12 on the GH5 is. If you're looking to get ultra wide in a truly economical way, I've linked the SLRMagic 8mm below...at f4 but only $176 and no adapter needed....and it's tiny. You also don't need a Speedbooster....the mount is m4/3 already.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1322738-REG/slr_magic_slr8m4_8mm_f_4_lens.html

Sorry...typing mistake, I meant "but as my 12-60 already gets me so wide"...I would recommend that if possible you try the Leica 12-60 at a shop...you will be surprised at how wide 12 on the GH5 is. If you're looking to get ultra wide in a truly economical way, I've linked the SLRMagic 8mm below...at f4 but only $176 and no adapter needed....and it's tiny. You also don't need a Speedbooster....the mount is m4/3 already.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1322738-REG/slr_magic_slr8m4_8mm_f_4_lens.html

I would never put a drone over a person like that....if you crashed into the ceiling or if the white comforter caused the drone to lose its perspective because it's not contrasts enough, well, the result could be disastrous...consult with a Key or Dolly Grip on how best to accomplish your shot....you're in SoCal..,find one in the 411 directory, offer to buy them lunch on a day they are not booked and describe your shot....there main objective is to rig anything  safely!...they will know.
PS...I own a drone and would never subject talent to that kind of risk!

The Tokina 11-16 gets you down to 7.4 mm at the wide end with a Nikon to M4/3 XL Speedbooster for around  399....the Speedbooster is of course extra, but considering crop factor and in the case of the XL adding 11/3 stops of extra speed to every lens you own in that mount, it is an incredible bargain....7.4 mm at f1.8 is Sigma speed!...I briefly considered the 8-18 Leica, bit as my 12-60 already gets me so wide, and as movement along the edges of the frame  gets weird when you pan on a lens  below 10 mm wide, I opted for saving the $1,100...the combination works really well for that rare occasion anyone would go that wide!

@Riadnasla you are referring to an actual steadycam style stabilizer with vest...is this correct?....If you are, I would look at a Came TV or symilar cheap knockoff style vest arm system, and the actual mechanical "steadycam" you buy that carries the camera is where I'd spend the money....although they take practice, IMO a gimbal will never equal the beauty of footage from a good steadycam operator. As the C100 is not that heavy and gimbals are the rage now, you can probably find a glide cam or something symilar quite cheap used.

At $3000 the Leica may actually turn out to be a bargain optically....very little in any format is going to touch this lens...lenstip does not glow easily in their reviews??

This thread has gotten so long I forget how far back I read a post that Panasonic has to be careful...other companies are nipping at it's heels....really!...which companies???...though I whine about the EF mount on the EVA, because most of my legacy glass is in Nikon or FD mount, I find the image drool worthy...as a cinema camera at that price and size...who's chasing Panasonic...and the GH5 & now the GH5s...and the G9....I'd say Panasonic is very nicely positioned now, and by the time another company gets even close, Panny will be miles ahead with yet some new innovation...I love the image out of BMD cameras too, but find the Panny's so great to shoot with...no real competition I can see anyway!

I would also point to a very important observation by @AaronChicago...having a camera that can shoot in the dark can be a novel concept as with the A7s years ago, but beauty in Cinematography comes from light and how a good Gaffer shapes that light....being able to shoot in the dark may work for a brief emergency shot you have to get (referring to narrative of course) but as ugly as a midday image without the correct shade and bounce is, the equivalent is true for shooting practically in the dark...just the other side of the spectrum to shooting in noon sun...the image in both cases is flat and uninteresting...it's light in whatever form you use it, that creates the beautiful imagery we drool over in the Cinema...the camera comes fairly far behind that...that's maybe the biggest reason for me not rushing to get in a pre order....I don't shoot in the dark and the GH5 gives me a more than adequate night shot, of say cars moving by in a wide city street shot....if there are people in the shot and they are significant to the story, there would be lights too.

I would also point to a very important observation by @AaronChicago...having a camera that can shoot in the dark can be a novel concept as with the A7s years ago, but beauty in Cinematography comes from light and how a good Gaffer shapes that light....being able to shoot in the dark may work for a brief emergency shot you have to get (referring to narrative of course) but as ugly as a midday image without the correct shade and bounce is, the equivalent is true for shooting practically in the dark...just the other side of the spectrum to shooting in noon sun...the image in both cases is flat and uninteresting...it's light in whatever form you use it, that creates the beautiful imagery we drool over in the Cinema...the camera comes fairly far behind that...that's maybe the biggest reason for me not rushing to get in a pre order....I don't shoot in the dark and the GH5 gives me a more than adequate night shot, of say cars moving by in a wide city street shot....if there are people in the shot and they are significant to the story, there would be lights too.

I would also point to a very important observation by @AaronChicago...having a camera that can shoot in the dark can be a novel concept as with the A7s years ago, but beauty in Cinematography comes from light and how a good Gaffer shapes that light....being able to shoot in the dark may work for a brief emergency shot you have to get (referring to narrative of course) but as ugly as a midday image without the correct shade and bounce is, the equivalent is true for shooting practically in the dark...just the other side of the spectrum to shooting in noon sun...the image in both cases is flat and uninteresting...it's light in whatever form you use it, that creates the beautiful imagery we drool over in the Cinema...the camera comes fairly far behind that...that's maybe the biggest reason for me not rushing to get in a pre order....I don't shoot in the dark and the GH5 gives me a more than adequate night shot, of say cars moving by in a wide city street shot....if there are people in the shot and they are significant to the story, there would be lights too.

I would also point to a very important observation by @AaronChicago...having a camera that can shoot in the dark can be a novel concept as with the A7s years ago, but beauty in Cinematography comes from light and how a good Gaffer shapes that light....being able to shoot in the dark may work for a brief emergency shot you have to get (referring to narrative of course) but as ugly as a midday image without the correct shade and bounce is, the equivalent is true for shooting practically in the dark...just the other side of the spectrum to shooting in noon sun...the image in both cases is flat and uninteresting...it's light in whatever form you use it, that creates the beautiful imagery we drool over in the Cinema...the camera comes fairly far behind that...that's maybe the biggest reason for me not rushing to get in a pre order....I don't shoot in the dark and the GH5 gives me a more than adequate night shot, of say cars moving by in a wide city street shot....if there are people in the shot and they are significant to the story, there would be lights too.

I would also point to a very important observation by @AaronChicago...having a camera that can shoot in the dark can be a novel concept as with the A7s years ago, but beauty in Cinematography comes from light and how a good Gaffer shapes that light....being able to shoot in the dark may work for a brief emergency shot you have to get (referring to narrative of course) but as ugly as a midday image without the correct shade and bounce is, the equivalent is true for shooting practically in the dark...just the other side of the spectrum to shooting in noon sun...the image in both cases is flat and uninteresting...it's light in whatever form you use it, that creates the beautiful imagery we drool over in the Cinema...the camera comes fairly far behind that...that's maybe the biggest reason for me not rushing to get in a pre order....I don't shoot in the dark and the GH5 gives me a more than adequate night shot, of say cars moving by in a wide city street shot....if there are people in the shot and they are significant to the story, there would be lights too.

No, when you move away from a base/native ISO, you lose dynamic range the further away you get. With the GH5S, the dual native ISO reclaims those lost stops at 2500, that you would have lost on the GH5 if you were just gaining up from the native ISO 400. So a GH5 at ISO 2500 will have less dynamic range than a GH5S at 2500. But put them both at ISO 400 and they will both be the same. That's the thing many are missing about the dual ISO function. It's less about noise, and more about maintaining equivalent dynamic range at two ISOs.

I own both the GH5 and GH2...the GH2 is, even today, a fantastic image producer...but it's not remotely in the league of the GH5....the GH5 is a professional tool and is probably used more as such, than by hobbyists....as for the Vimeo or YouTube lack of GH5 footage...our very own Jonpais has posted clips of the GH5 that are amazing in every way...if someone needs more "proof" of what the GH5 can do, probably not the camera for them...and lastly, I would venture that probably the vast amount of camera posts on YouTube and Vimeo are done by hobbyists, as they are free publishing media outlets...professionals have their work on a reel, and usually link it to someone they are interested in working with. (I could be dating myself badly here, as I don't even have a website) all the same...I never post publicly....interpret that as you wish....it matters little to me....as does the camera I use for that matter...I only care about the results I get in my work....period....again...I know this is off topic...I urge anyone in doubt of the GH5's capability to view Jon's work with it!

This thread is taking a bizarre turn.
The moral standard that we should promote empathy for the depressed so as to lessen the stigma around talking about what they're going through. The idea that we should reach out to the suffering so that their pain may be eased. 
Why are 'clicks' wrong, in this case? Because it raises one man's ego and personal gain over the wellbeing of society. If we look at this strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I think the joy this video can bring people is less than the harm it can cause. 
What if I'm wrong and on the wrong side of history? I don't know, what if? I have no way of knowing that now, but I do know that I feel a strongly about the morals in place in this case. Who decides what's wrong? Society, and judging by the size of the outcry, it's largely voicing that what Logan Paul did is wrong. 

This idea of questioning the moral standard doesn't make much sense to me, because we're all playing a part in shaping the moral standards of the present and the future. By raising our voices about what we think, we're doing our tiny bit to make the world a little bit more like what we'd want it to be. Sitting out of the conversation and getting this detachedly analytical about it is surrendering the shaping of our morality to the Logan Pauls of the world, who have no qualms about acting purely in their self-interest, apparently untroubled by this kind of introspection.

Sorry to go back on topic here...Panasonic's big announcement is not another version of the GH5, and if it has something to do with the GH5, at all, it's probably a version of Vlog closer to the Varicam and EVA but of course, to match the DR of the GH5..and to those worried about whether the GH5 can deliver cinematic footage (is this even fucking English), do not buy a GH5...it is a complicated camera and in spite of the price, a professional tool...you will not be happy with it! 

It will probably become clear when he tries to sell another SLRMagic Rangefinder??

Black & White on the GH2 is fantastic...and I think you still have one?...you have to test between the high and lower contrast versions which you like if memory serves correctly, but shooting with the Drewnet Long GOP 9 hack I personally love the result! Andrew also posted some lovely footage from the GH2 he shot in B&W...may be in his guide on the camera.

It will probably become clear when he tries to sell another SLRMagic Rangefinder??

@Chrille...presuming you're actually asking for advice, I would say no, based on your impressions/ comments of  the GH5 you should definitely not buy one.

Though you feel you don't need or want 4K, perhaps the article I copied from Reduser will explain why 4K to you....it has as much to to as anything that (although not to you) to most people the holy grail in digital cameras is to get to the look of S35....this is in both the image, and the projectibilty....where no digital camera can BE the same image as S35 film, camera makers and users can aspire to get as close to that image as possible....so perhaps to those who don't want or NEED 4K, this article somewhat clarifies why to others 4K matters...in simple terms, they are perhaps hoping to get closer to that holy grail!
 
 
No matter how it is cut – film material always 
possesses the same performance data:  
the smallest reproducible detail (20 % modu* 
lation) on a camera film negative (up to 
200 ASA) is about 0.006 mm. We can 
think of this as the size of film’s “pixels”, a 
concept that is well known from electronic 
image processing. And it does not matter if 
it is 16 mm, 35 mm, or 65 mm film: the crys* 
talline structure of the emulsion is indepen* 
dent of the film format. Also, the transmission 
capability of the imaging lens is generally 
high enough to transfer this spatial frequency 
(0.006 mm = 80 lp/mm) almost equally well 
for all film formats. 
The film format becomes relevant, however, 
when it comes to how many such very small 
details are to be stored on its surface – that 
is the question of the total available storage 
capacity. In the table below the number of 
“pixels” are indicated for the image’s width 
and height. 
Based on the smallest reproducible detail 
of 0.006 mm the table gives an overview of 
the storage capacity of different film formats. 

S16 2058 × 1237 pixels
S35 4153 × 3112 pixels
65 8746 × 3835 pixels

this is taken from a very detailed article about sharpness and resolution from Arri.
 
+100!....I have never sat in a single production meeting where a DP has said, I can't get this shot  because it's too dark or I can't get that steadycam shot because AF is not good enough...lol...the director wants answers in that meeting then and there...if the DP did not know, they would leave the meeting rather rapidly to be replaced by someone who did and  could...there are no shortcuts to excellence...someone  who rolls 200 takes on a digital camera just because the media is so cheap, is not accomplished....they are hoping for a fluke...and if they did get the shot, it would not be repeatable for them, because they'd have no idea what they did...again, there are no shortcuts to being good at something....and the camera can't do that for you either....it's easy to luck onto a shot that lasts 20 seconds and to post it on a forum and to receive lots of ooohs and aaahs...the expert can do that throughout a 21/2 feature and in that lies the major difference!

Though you feel you don't need or want 4K, perhaps the article I copied from Reduser will explain why 4K to you....it has as much to to as anything that (although not to you) to most people the holy grail in digital cameras is to get to the look of S35....this is in both the image, and the projectibilty....where no digital camera can BE the same image as S35 film, camera makers and users can aspire to get as close to that image as possible....so perhaps to those who don't want or NEED 4K, this article somewhat clarifies why to others 4K matters...in simple terms, they are perhaps hoping to get closer to that holy grail!
 
 
No matter how it is cut – film material always 
possesses the same performance data:  
the smallest reproducible detail (20 % modu* 
lation) on a camera film negative (up to 
200 ASA) is about 0.006 mm. We can 
think of this as the size of film’s “pixels”, a 
concept that is well known from electronic 
image processing. And it does not matter if 
it is 16 mm, 35 mm, or 65 mm film: the crys* 
talline structure of the emulsion is indepen* 
dent of the film format. Also, the transmission 
capability of the imaging lens is generally 
high enough to transfer this spatial frequency 
(0.006 mm = 80 lp/mm) almost equally well 
for all film formats. 
The film format becomes relevant, however, 
when it comes to how many such very small 
details are to be stored on its surface – that 
is the question of the total available storage 
capacity. In the table below the number of 
“pixels” are indicated for the image’s width 
and height. 
Based on the smallest reproducible detail 
of 0.006 mm the table gives an overview of 
the storage capacity of different film formats. 

S16 2058 × 1237 pixels
S35 4153 × 3112 pixels
65 8746 × 3835 pixels

this is taken from a very detailed article about sharpness and resolution from Arri.
 
+100!....I have never sat in a single production meeting where a DP has said, I can't get this shot  because it's too dark or I can't get that steadycam shot because AF is not good enough...lol...the director wants answers in that meeting then and there...if the DP did not know, they would leave the meeting rather rapidly to be replaced by someone who did and  could...there are no shortcuts to excellence...someone  who rolls 200 takes on a digital camera just because the media is so cheap, is not accomplished....they are hoping for a fluke...and if they did get the shot, it would not be repeatable for them, because they'd have no idea what they did...again, there are no shortcuts to being good at something....and the camera can't do that for you either....it's easy to luck onto a shot that lasts 20 seconds and to post it on a forum and to receive lots of ooohs and aaahs...the expert can do that throughout a 21/2 feature and in that lies the major difference!

better at what? ultra low light, well that is nothing Godfather or other Bmovies were shot at. Not even the King of Darkness, Gordon Willis shot at ultra low light. Panasonic is not late at all. All their video orientated DSLMs have been top notch. GH5 will show less artefacts in low light but more noise. Which of the two looks more "filmic"? I say, noise over artefacts any time.

AF is not that bad at all though I don't use it....I did however play with it to see...the real problem IMO is people want to bypass the skills to operate a camera this complex and essentially want a feature loaded GH5 that acts like a point and shoot....the gimbal issue comes up a lot...the sollution, unless you're Martin Scorsese, making Goodfellas, shoot shorter takes and employ some of the skills steadycam operators have used for years...like locking focus in manual mode, and then maintaining a constant distance from the sublject....or using a lens in the case where this is impossible with a short infinity distance and shooting away...for those complaining about GH5 AF on gimbals, I suggest viewing some steadycam reels on Vimeo or YouTube....and try to imagine the obstacle course the operators are navigating to achieve their incredible results....without AF and a camera setup that weighs between 25 and 45 lbs...in other words, stop blaming the camera and developer your own skills....for run and gun, either learn to focus manually or put up with what it can do, which is not as bad as reported...with AF the skill lies in where you can use it with this camera and where not.

@Chrille...presuming you're actually asking for advice, I would say no, based on your impressions/ comments of  the GH5 you should definitely not buy one.