IronFilm

So 4K also feats an extra crop of 1.17x, which means 1,75x compared to FF, if the GH5 had multi-aspect sensor of 1.86x, it would be pretty close.
The ability to charge via USB is pretty nice and accepting a AC adapter for the grip is also welcomed. I wish it had a touchscreen and a swivel screen instead of this weird articulated one.
There are some minor things like the lack of 120fps/240fps slow motion but overall, this is great for filmmakers, I've been wanting Fuji Colours and Kaizen for quite some time. I couldn't find the F-log gamma curve but this was indeed a surprise, I thought it would come after via FW, but this is much better.
The good thing about Fuji is that they listen to feedback and upgrades via FW WILL happen, so most of the software related feats might be addressed that way, hopefully the hardware is capable so slow motion can come later.
 
It’s way too soon to judge but some observations. There are some blown out highlights, but they probably shot it in a pre-production firmware, I can’t know if they were using F-log but I’m assuming they were.
I don’t know though if whoever filmed it was familiarized with the F-loggamma curve and how to use it properly, V-log and S-log for instance, you HAVE to expose it to the right by one or two stops. I don’t know how F-log works but exposing it incorrectly might be the reason for the blown out highlights.
In a couple of months the final production model should be out and there will be plenty of tests to get to know F-log. By the X-PRO2 files, it seems that Fuji is good in retaining data in the shadows, so maybe it might behave a bit differently from V-log and S-log, which could also explain the blown out HL.

There are lots of info and even videos on YouTube. But until the official announcement there is little point in posting them. The get taken down rather quickly
But here, http://www.fujirumors.com/online-now-full-fujifilm-x-t2-presentation-specsimagesproduct-description/
I've loved everything I've seen from the X-Pro2. I think Andrew was spot on with his review. The colors are outstanding.
I also feel that the general opinion that the X-Pro2 had a low DR is rather false. Play with the files and you will be amazed at all the info that lurks in the shadows.
What kept me from it where three things. 1. Already have two Leica M Rangefinder's. 2. A tad much Moire. 3. I knew the X-T2 was coming.
I'm not much for preorders but I might book this baby today.
 

If I had that cash, def I'd pick the Fs5, its an absolut beast from what I hear, and very very versatile.

FS5, unless you're desperately stuck with Canon. Will say, the C(x)00 series is a pretty good doco machine, but the FS5 will give you plenty more options including slowmo and 10-bit HD.

In every one of my local rental houses in the UK... all of them have said the C300 II is never getting asked for. One of them even sold off their C300 II's. My primary rental house, Provision, said that they've had to buy more FS7's as it's BY FAR the most requested camera now. 
I feel more are going for the FS7 because of 4k60p and the much better slow motion options. Canon really missed the boat there with the C300 II. The massive price decrease of the C300 II isn't a coincidence. 
That said, I enjoy using the original C300. It's a very simple, no frills, always works kinda camera. It will be interesting to look at the used market for the C300 II in a year or so. 

Ran across this beaut shot on the gh2 just a few months ago. I was reeally surprised to hear it was after I watched it

Wow. Powerful film.
Just shows that the GH2 is still a great camera in the right hands.

One of the Rode 2016 finalists used a Panasonic GH2:
http://www.rode.com/myrodereel/watch/entry/2564
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7caTq63QKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYPAIlduk8
 

Hope some people find this helpful.
 
http://blog.josephmoore.name/2014/11/01/comparing-focal-adapters-the-metabones-speed-booster-vs-the-rj-photo-lens-turbo/
 

One of the Rode 2016 finalists used a Panasonic GH2:
http://www.rode.com/myrodereel/watch/entry/2564
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7caTq63QKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYPAIlduk8
 

One of the Rode 2016 finalists used a Panasonic GH2:
http://www.rode.com/myrodereel/watch/entry/2564
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7caTq63QKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYPAIlduk8
 

If I was doing a music video I would definitely get anything BUT the C300. 50/ 60fps in important to me. If 25p is all you need for sure then okay but even basic slo-mo can be quite useful especially for music videos.
I would take the FS5 but if you had to go Canon then I would go for the C100 mk2.

This is exactly why I'm now only buying used cameras. Camera's go down in value so fast. Not worth buying one new anymore. Especially canon c-series cameras. Their new cameras always go down within a year or less. 

Just to be very clear... not shot by me!! I wish it was! It looks great. 
But I just happened to come across it, and had to share it, as it is a nice example of what can be shot with GH2 in capable hands. 

I think it would've been smarter to use a RED Epic instead of a R1 for football, as an R1 is too long. Not round enough!

I was always intrigued by the DB - some of the most gorgeous images of this era came from the thing. Always seemed a little overpriced and under-featured to me though. S16 was a tough sell lens-wise (the pocket's price point was what made sifting through old super-16 glass palatable for many), and a "beauty" camera that can't even do 30p - I couldn't go there. And as robust as SSDs are, I've replaced two of them in the last couple years, so a non-user-servicable drive worried me as well. If it could have done 30 or 60p, and come in at under $3k with a quality focal length reducer, I'd have been in long ago. Hate to see it go though.

On the topic of compressed raw codecs.... What the hell are GoPro doing with CineForm Raw?
They just seem to be sat on the codec/patent without ever doing much with it. It's been licensed on a couple of cameras, but could be a real asset to a company like Sony or Canon, as it was patented before REDcode.

Yes but significant improvement of a mediocrity does not necessary give something great. Actually the DR is still less good than on a 600$ D5500. Is this acceptable for 10 times the price? You judge.

Those are indeed visible differences for as 'ideal' a test as is physically possible since a very high quality zoom lens was used on the same camera (cropping in post after changing settings to simulate an APS-C crop). Since the differences are very subtle, the aesthetic quality boost may be lost on the general public, in the same way as fine food and alcohol, can be etc. Were the Hateful 8 and The Revenant better movies being shot on the ARRI 65? Did they make more money because of the large format camera used? (smaller format cameras were also used). The answers to both questions is probably not significantly. With effectively unlimited budgets, why not shoot on the 'best'? The relative cost of the larger format camera is insignificant to the film's budget. However using the pinnacle-best gear makes the directors and DPs happy, and that counts for something.
Using the DOF simulator, I noticed the circle of confusion and other parameters weren't exactly the same between formats. While FOV and DOF will be nearly identical, subtle things as noted such as blur transition region stretching can be analyzed by tracing individual light rays- photons. My crop test was not perfect, however there is a way to study this without worrying about issues of optics or lenses: computer simulation via ray tracing. This could be used to create graphs showing the increase in blur transition regions based on the sensor size. If it's a real effect, the results could be presented to optical designers such as Caldwell to show a possible market for a MF to FF focal reducer. If not by Caldwell, perhaps someone else in HK or CN.
Someone with the desire and free time could explore ray tracing to create renders showing any advantages to larger sensor sizes using Blender (free): https://www.blender.org/features/cycles/ . Since this is a controversial subject, showing these kinds of results could help visually explain effects previously difficult to put into words. I need to get back to working on improving content and storytelling- more important than tech!
 
 

Here is my example.
Take a magazine cover, take a pair of scissors, cut out a crop of the cover. 
Did it get darker? Did the DOF change? Did the compression change? 
Or was is just a crop?

How is that helpful? Copying other's work without fundamentally understanding why something looks good isn't being an artist. Understanding why something looks good from a technical standpoint doesn't eliminate aesthetic sensibility. Rather it helps with original creative works since it's not necessary to mindlessly copy-paste other people's ideas into a new work. Nothing wrong with being inspired by other works, only that original works are better when it's understood why inspirational material is good, and those concepts can be applied in more general and creative ways. Not taking the time to understand the tech behind the art is lazy, and will fundamentally limit creative works.
All art is technical. The greatest artists are also master technicians: Michelangelo, DaVinci, etc. Who was perhaps the biggest camera nerd ever? Stanley Kubrick.
Understanding why something is aesthetically pleasing is technical. If a particular camera and lens combo has a pleasing aesthetic, we understand why using technology.

I agree, I bet there are more professionals using digital medium format for largely marketing/appearances reasons than for real, noticeable, concrete differences in image results.
Because at the high end of a being a photographer, marketing your brand matters even more than quality of result. As by that point everyone is already very good!
Good job at breaking down the pro MF arguments one by one. 
And MF sure is not winning on a cost basis! (no matter how cheap a Pentax digital MF gets!)

If no one is willing to do some work and actually do a test comparing MF to FF in the real world with equivalent settings, then what's the point of debating without any comparative evidence? I'm a cognitive scientist, open-minded and willing to learn new things. That said, a valid scientific test, which is easy to do is all that's needed to make a useful point regarding MF vs. FF.
If the only difference is MF lens design, that's cool, however this debate was MF vs. FF cameras (and again, Caldwell says no advantage for MF lenses anymore; no point in a MF => FF SpeedBooster).
If an MF camera system (body + lens) is truly better than FF, I'd invest in MF. So far there's no comparative evidence showing this to be true (the only scientifically valid way to determine if there's a difference).

This debate is visual- where's the visual proof: correctly set up MF and FF systems for equivalence? I posted a link to the 5DSR compared to the Phase One. The difference is minor, and not enough for a business to invest in MF systems. To learn and help others one must do some work- shoot a correctly set up MF vs. FF test. Shooting with a zoom- that's perfectly valid, the debate is sensor size, not lenses, though now the consensus is it's not sensor size anymore but MF lenses themselves. So a SpeedBooster for FF would make sense if that were true, and thus Brian Caldwell's comment that it's not worth it because the MF lenses aren't better than the top FF lenses. So if true the debate would shift to MF provides a better value due to lower cost. Is that really true?