IronFilm

I just had a look at my GH6 footage that I took before selling it and I must say it looked great! It has a super organic feel to it and loved the colors in just Standard profile. I also tried shooting in Vlog quite a bit, but Standard really did it for me. I took it to the French Alps last summer and it performed so well for photos and video. Sure, it didn't have PDAF, but when you learn to work around it, it's really no big deal. Honestly, I hope to have a similar opportunity with the GH7.

To add, in this instance, the GH7, a smaller sensor camera, has a few major advantages over any larger sensor camera in its price range... internal ProRes Raw and ProRes HQ, 32bit float audio, a LogC curve, probably the best IBIS, and the best tilting/articulating LCD mechanism that I have ever used.

Granted the title of the thread is "Panasonic GH7". However, invariably with any camera release that is not full frame, the discussion goes only to sensor size and how inferior the sensor is because it's not FF. It's quite ludicrous.
This might sound crazy, but usually have better discussion about aesthetics, creativity and productivity with ChatGPT. Sure, it can be predictable sometimes, but I seem to always learn something and it can point me in the right direction. When talking to humans, it would seem there are always games being played: Trolling, Sock Puppetry, Brigading, Flame Wars, Sealioning, Astroturfing, Gaslighting, Spamming, Doxxing, Dogpiling, Shitposting, and Griefing. With ChatGPT, you never have the feeling you might lose something and true discussion can actually happen. I know, it's a sad state of affairs, but that's life on the internet. Fortunately, there are people don't do any of those things.

So... the GH7... yeah... a pretty cool camera...

If you're shooting raw at anything less than the full resolution, then of course there will be a crop!
This will be true for any camera. Could be Panasonic, ARRI, RED, Nikon, Canon, whoever! It's a law of physics / maths / the universe. 
Want to shoot at a low resolution but with the full sensor? Then choose anything else but raw. 

@lsquareif you want a scratch mic with your DWM-XLR2 to get decent-ish ambient audio, then get the Deity SMic3S if on a very low budget, or the Sanken CSM1 if on a medium budget. 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1830582-REG/deity_microphones_dtm0304d11_s_mic_3s_short_shotgun.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1404643-REG/sanken_cs_m1_super_cardioid_short.html 
Unless they're specifically doing 360VR videos, or maybe some other niche usage (I dunno, creating audio library with lots of different format options??) then usually ambisonics is not a good idea for ambient recordings. 

@lsquareif you want a scratch mic with your DWM-XLR2 to get decent-ish ambient audio, then get the Deity SMic3S if on a very low budget, or the Sanken CSM1 if on a medium budget. 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1830582-REG/deity_microphones_dtm0304d11_s_mic_3s_short_shotgun.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1404643-REG/sanken_cs_m1_super_cardioid_short.html 
Unless they're specifically doing 360VR videos, or maybe some other niche usage (I dunno, creating audio library with lots of different format options??) then usually ambisonics is not a good idea for ambient recordings. 

Being serious, looking forward to Monday.
Rarely do I preorder a camera and half my gear I buy used, but based on considerable user experience and my needs…and on the assumption that it will suit my needs perfectly, I can’t see why it will not be that ‘no-brainer’ for my needs.
Second choice would be a used Z9 and although I prefer the battery grip built in approach, it is still considerably heavier than a Z6iii will be with battery grip and the spec of the Z9 is arguably a little more than I need.
My only ‘concern’ is a Lumix S1H replacement with Samyang 35-150 will almost certainly come out at some point and it makes more sense for me to have a fully L Mount set up, but there are no signs of the former…
And why a ‘S2H’?
Quite simply the best camera from a user experience I have ever owned, video AND stills.
But it’s not that big a deal me using L Mount for video and Nikon for stills and I’d rather do something this year than not as currently juggling 4 cameras is problematic…

At the risk of jumping in on a question that was basically made for @IronFilm, if your goal is to capture ambient sound as a 360 degree soundscape, you probably want an ambisonic microphone.  Look into something like the Zoom VRH-8 or the Rode NT-SF1.

it’s a trick to understand optics and basic math?
jesus fucking christ man
if any of you gave as much shit about making, or working on interesting art on here and sharing it instead of jacking off your lil dingdongs over new gear, resolutions, different starting point looks of shitty fucking sensors, or being mentally insane about 24 fps this place could actually have interesting discussions. 
 
I fucking hate gear. i fucking hate lenses, cameras, shitty lights, cables, rigs etc. Sadly its necessary to understand at least some of it, as it is a means to an end to create what i actually want to create. i suggest others to view it same way. Or learn color grading, like kye said. That has generated a bit of income for me from time to time.
 

No, this is ignoring everything I've said.  Obviously the same lens on different sensor sizes at the same FOV will look different.  That's not controversial.  The point is that the FOV and DOF of a 12mm f/1.4 lens on a M43 sensor will be nearly identical to that of a 24mm f/2.8 lens on a full frame sensor.  Will the specific characteristics of the lenses influence the overall look?  Sure.  If the 24mm f/2.8 is from the 1970's, it will certainly look a bit different from a 12mm lens made in 2018.  But that has nothing to do with the sensor size.
As I already said, I have done plenty of side-by-side tests over the years.  If you believe that a bigger sensor is really giving you a different look, that's fine.  I hope you enjoy it.  It's just not a position that is supported by any actual facts.

Nope.  You're flat-out wrong.
The only meaningful difference that has been presented is in the characteristics of different lenses which is real, but has nothing to do with medium format.  Pentax 645 lenses look different from Mamiya 645 lenses which, in turn, look different from Mamiya 7 lenses, etc.  They don't have a unified and monolithic look.  They won't have the same look when adapted to work with your digital camera, with or without any sort of focal reducer.
You could say "I like the look of Mamiya 645 lenses with a Kipon focal reducer on my full frame camera."  That's totally valid, but if you say "Now my camera has the medium format look," you sound ridiculous.  Your camera has the look of Mamiya 645 lenses, nothing more.  People won't magically feel like they can now "walk into the image" and it won't be any more 3d than anything else.  Using a bigger sensor, likewise, won't make the image more 3d.

Right, but that is proving my point.  There is no medium format look.  Maybe there are dozens of medium format looks depending on which lens set somebody chooses, but with a definition like "it means different things to different people," you might as well be saying "I prefer a cinematic look" or "I prefer something that looks more filmic."
And of course not all lenses have the same character, but my point is really just that by the definitions given, I have actual large format and medium format film cameras that don't achieve the "medium format look" (as described by people here) and I have smaller sensor cameras that have a real chance of getting there instead, depending on which lenses I put on or whether I mount them on the back of a LF field camera using a vintage lens.
And of course 8mm film and any modern-ish phone camera, not just the iPhone 4, will look substantially different.  This is, again, a place where there are a number of characteristics which are fairly common among 8mm cameras/film, including 18fps, gate weave, huge grain, and a response curve typical to the film being used - some of which could be simulated on the phone and some not so much.  

It's wrong to assume that just because a person is famous that they're immune to "big = better" hype. 
Larger sized film stock was an easier way to get better technical performance, they didn't have 6400 ISO cameras back then

There is absolutely a difference of looks between the formats, but it doesn't mean lens equivalency is false.
Lens equivalency says that "all else being equal, a 28/2.8 will look the same on FF as a 14/1.4 on MFT" but the thing is, actually making a 28mm F2.8 lens and a 14mm F1.4 lens would end up with subtle differences in how you would do that.
The "look" is really a combination of the subtle differences in lens design.  The MF look is probably just as much an artefact of history and would incorporate the lens design quirks of the time.  A modern MF camera with optically pristine lenses wouldn't have as much of the look as an MF film camera with vintage MF glass.  A FF camera with a super-fast lens that has the same design flaws as the common MF lenses would have a lot of the MF look.
Lenses aren't perfect, and much of the "look" is due to the imperfections.  Reducing the discussion down to FOV and DOF is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Also, when 5d2 and 7d just came out in 2009, I spent nights and nights watching almost all of the videos on vimeo shot by these two cameras. I can tell you that they are different, even with the same crappy in stock codec. 5d2 footage just shows some magic eye-catching things there, the color, the gradation, that magic touch that 7d2 footage is lacking. 7D2 footage looks dry whereas 5d2 footage looks juicy. In other words, full frame vv look exists. 

Just plain wrong.
Yedlin: Because he wanted to
Tarantino: Because he wanted to, and also is far from an expert in optics/imaging
60's films: Resolution and marketing
Nope.
It's no problem.  Your comments are already more than dumb enough.  No need to dumb them down further.
Why produce different-sized sensors?  Different use cases, history, any number of other reasons.  Why pay $10k for a camera when the exact same image comes from a $2k camera?  Any number of reasons including ergonomics, personal preference, and the fact that the exact same image won't come from both cameras.
By your reasoning, anybody would be a complete moron to buy an Alexa with a S35 sensor for $20-40k when they could just go buy a used GFX 100 and get full-width 16:9 4K video for $3k used - since the GFX, with its 44mm wide sensor, will magically produce an amazing image that a person can just walk into, unlike the shitty Alexa with its puny 28mm wide sensor.  The GFX will produce huge sweeping images that you can just walk right into where the Alexa will produce a poor image with no depth, usable only by complete amateurs.

Afaik adapting a SLR pancake makes it still stick out more than the native 14mm pancake on MFT fi. @bjohn So I would love some native pancakes. Options of lenses with unmotorized MF and AF would greatly add to the pocket fun on the S9. Leica M39 and M-mount is another interesting route for adapting some small lenses, of course, as shown before by @BTM_Pix on various occasions of our search for small lenses.:)

I still feel the main advantage to L mount is the ability to adapt almost anything to it, like you can with MFT, E-mount, Z-mount, etc. If I got an L mount camera the first thing I'd do is buy adapters so I can use my tiny rangefinder lenses, or my Minolta Rokkor lenses, or my Nikon F-mount lenses. I almost never buy native lenses, although I would if I used autofocus.

Yeah, but you could just do also that with a laptop and a eGPU, and it would be an even more convenient setup to be traveling with than one without a monitor like this Beelink
Exactly, I could get a dirt cheap but still high performance laptop such as a Thinkpad P71 for just US$550 then pair it with a beefy eGPU. Oodles of power!
https://www.ebay.com/itm/116213947999 

Nope. 
https://www.eoshd.com/news/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2/ 

I don't have hands on experience with the Alexa ev and f35, but basically most of others listed in this test I own and tune with my hands.
I have to say, they all look good in their own ways. each its own. you really need to own these cameras and lenses for several years to get what you want. renting them for a weekend, even top dps don't have enough time to know them to get the best out of them. 
so, although this test was ground breaking, it still had its bias. 
I don't know why people sell their gears. I rarely do that. after spending so much time knowing them, they are like my friends, part of my life, why should I sell them and get something new yet unnecessarily better but definitely less familiar gears?! 
 

Let's remember the great Francis Ford Coppola Preferred the hacked GH2 image! That must have pissed someone off. In my opinion, pissing people off by shooting "lesser" gear is a good reason to continue to do so. I still use my GH2, old reliable, and get paid for it.

Yes, I remember. What's funny is that the results are so clear that they decided to never do it again. And that was exactly 12 years ago.