IronFilm

Wish I could like this more than once! :-( 

I'm mainly finding it staring at me saying "why aren't you using me?" unfortunately.
The intention was to use it for the tournament assignment I've just done but it took a complete backseat to the stills work to the extent that it and all its supporting gear actually got shipped back home midway through as it was becoming a logistical burden hauling it round with me!
I've got the new firmware on it at least so as soon as I've had this little holiday it will be getting put to work for the new season so watch this space.
What I can say from all the testing I've done with it is that the sheer versatility of this thing in using native MFT, B4, PL, Canon AF, Contax Zeiss, M42 and Nikon lenses is that you'll get no arguments from me about what mount Panasonic have missed a trick not putting on the EVA  

Im mainly a hobbyist and I am running around with a ursa mini pro . The price of a ursa mini pro is still cheap, for the image that you are getting.
And yeah nofilmschool was great for beginner filmmakers, but it seems it has not evolved in years, it just sticks with beginner filmmaking tutorials and articles. So advanced users do no bother with the site anymore.

@jax_rox How the popularity of a technological solution affects its usability? ("Sure, the JVC may have done it, but how popular is it..? "). This variable sensor is a brilliant idea, and have implemented some unique features and innovations because of that. Actually the biggest selling point of this camera is the variability(sic) of this sensor, certainly not its high ISO capabilities.
and in some circles (weddings, events) and some markets it is an option, it is a sleeper camera, that didn't make the news like these Cine cameras did (and JVC marketed it as an advanced camcorder and not a cine camera) but slowly and steadily has build some dynamic. Together with the Atomos it offers 4K/60frames, and fixes the monitoring issues (its little monitor is very bad!), and you pay less than half.
Popularity isn't the one and only measurement, believe me, I have 3 NX cameras, and I use the JVC frequently!

D500 is the same price as the GH5, and if you look around you can find the D500 for hundreds of dollars cheaper. 

And if you need the high end stills capacity of the D500, then the D500 looks like an extremely good value buy compared to the GH5!

And now there is the D7500, that probably by the end of the year will be going for close to half of what the GH5 goes for. 

So while I think the GH5 is absolutely fantastic camera, I think a strong argument can still be made for a Nikon being right for some people's needs.

Exactly, Panasonic missed the mark completely IMO. If they use the same Super 35mm Varicam sensor as planned, with a Micro 4/3 mount... or very least a swappable mount, with 5-axis, include an EVF, with 4K up to 72fps and some form of internal/external Raw... it DOESN'T NEED to be a yet to be developed 5.7K Raw (although that is pretty damn cool) and price it between $6000 and $7000, they would have nailed this for the market (I assume) they're going for.
Who knows, maybe they have plans for an AF200 that will fit in between the GH5 and the EVA, or maybe this was supposed to be the AF200 but they feared they'd lose some GH5 sales or vice versa.
But, as is, it is an an exciting camera. The dual ISO sounds sweet. And it should be a great codec with beautiful colors. We'll know more when some footage gets released. The problem with early announcements like this is it gives Canon and Sony plenty of time to adjust accordingly.
Now if Canon could pull the stick out of their greedy asses and stop worrying about cannibalizing one of their 2-3 year old cameras, they could easily make their XF-AVC FW update at 10bit instead of 8.
Hell, they could also throw in a high bitrate, all-i mov if they want to give their customers more options. Shamefully, they probably won't do any of that.
For me they don't need to, I am only interested in the internal Raw with MP4 proxies. The question will become, over the next 6 months, is how interested I am to buy one or just rent one.
Now if they put out a 5D version of this camera, without the FW update, for $4000 to $5000 (won't happen) I will be buying one. 
But honestly, the two cameras are so different that any comparison is kind of completely unnecessary. The only real comparison to be made is that both cameras seem to be designed for low end cinema (narratives, commercials, docs, music videos) and neither seem designed for the high end event videographer... which I would think is the bread and butter of that market segment. Both are weird cameras.

Has Panasonic stated why they developed a new sensor rather than using the Varicam 35 sensor?  It would seem reusing that sensor would be much cheaper for them, and no-one would complain about its performance or the lack of 5.7K. Could have a Varicam mini -heck even follow Canons lead and give it internal raw but only 8bit codecs to protect your higher end.  Makes me wonder if it will turn out to be closer to the DVX200/GH5, but then why go with EF mount as many would be happy with a AF100 successor with m4/3 sensor and mount.  It kind of makes a bit of a mockery of m4/3 as being suitable for higher-end applications -buy our' professional' 42.5 nocticron for your Gh5 which offers 'professional versatility around the world' but if you want to create 'cinematic moments' with your EVA1 then you need to buy some Canon glass - bit of a mixed message for their marketing.

If those are all you can afford, then I recommend sticking with your D5200. 

Keep saving up! Or spend it on some other area of film gear. 

As it is best (as a rough rule of thumb) to at least skip one generation ahead, when upgrading. So going D5200 to D5300 doesn't make much sense. 

It makes more sense to instead to upgrade to D500 or D7500 (or maybe a D5700 when it comes out?? If it gains 4K too), however you've said they're outside your price range. 

I think the Nikon flat is sweet and grades very well. Plus it gives you 13 stops of usable dynamic range. Information which is lost when not using flat.

jonpais I shoot at least every week, its my job, i"m not able to make excuses, weak or otherwise: It pays my mortgage.  I currently use the d800 for stils and the d5500 on a gimbal for video.  Having one camera to do both would speed up my workflow and reduce my hassle immensely. Currently there is no camera that shoots stills with the same DR as the d800 and full frame 4k.  If I went the a7r2 I'd have to change lenses to shoot 4k crop defeating the purpose. A7s2 does not have the same DR so I'd have to bracket stills meaning longer in post. D810 is a possibility but its very heavy for gimbal work blah blah blah.
If I want to grade my work a lot, whats it to you? I like it.  And why would you frame my flippant comment about a 4k mirrorless nikon as a childish plea for a new toy?

Wrote up a little guide for people new to this and looking to buy their first recorder. And is the way I see the world of low budget recorders is they're ranked like this (starting from worst/cheapest to best/expensive):
Tascam DR22WL / Zoom H1 (I'd suggest skipping right over this tier of recorders! But hey, my first ever short film I did years ago was with a chinese shotgun running straight into a Zoom H1!! :-o Shocking but true... everyone starts somewhere!)
Tascam DR60D mk2 (the DR60D mk1, before the mk2 came out, is what I myself started out using for no budget shorts as a budding location sound recordist)
Tascam DR70D (the *minimum* I'd recommend for a location sound recordist, even if you're just a student / no budget guy. Although in desperate cases, you could scrape by with getting the DR60Dmk2, but doing the opposite and stretching for an F4 is very worthwhile. Certainly, I could travel back in time I'd just have gone straight for the Zoom F4 from the starts! *Except* the F4 didn't come out until a few years later...  you live in a very lucky time with so many wonderful options to choose from!) or Tascam DR680 (these can be found at bargain prices secondhand, which is what I did before I then later on purchased a Zoom F4 once that came out & I spotted an F4 at a good price)
Zoom F4 / Zoom F8  / Sound Devices MixPre6 (I skip right over the MixPre3, as the MixPre6 is very similar yet does so so much more at only a relatively small extra cost. Also I regard the three of F4/F8/MixPre6 as all on broadly the same level to each other, just varying slightly from each other in one area or another that ones might have a small lead over the other one. This is the tier where I'd see you're now reaching the semi-pro level)
Sound Devices 633 / Zaxcom Maxx / Sanosax SX-R4+ (finally you have now got up to the "industry standard" when it comes to recorders people use for small shoots, especially when mixing from the bag. If you're doing this full time as your job or hiring someone who is, then likely this is what is being used. Either that or similar gear, or even something better above this)
And if you considering ones priced above those last three....  you're surely doing this full time as a sound recordist and getting a healthy income from that, so why are you asking us here on Frugal Filmmaker? ha! :-P But yes, tonnes and tonnes more options exist at the higher end as well!
Finally, if you're considering something in the budget range within what I just covered, but isn't one of those that I mentioned, then it probably is *not* a good idea to buy if you're intending to be a location sound recordist. 
Something else only might *maybe* make sense if you've got in mind some other purpose for it, such as perhaps you want to record a band in a studio (which has very different needs / constraints), or you're the rare exception which proves the rule, or you are getting lucky finding some amazingly priced deal which can make an otherwise bad purchase decision then make sense if "the price is right".
For instance I didn't include the Roland R88, as I feel it is extremely poor value for money in 2017! However.... there was a time at the end of 2016 when the Roland R88 got a huge price drop because it was being discontinued. Even with that massive price drop, the Roland R88 probably still wasn't a smart purchase vs the Zoom F8, but the big drop in price at least made the R88 a somewhat competitive option worth mentioning in a round up of all the various choices. However, that sale is now long since ended, and the prices I see on eBay for a Roland R88 is even higher than what you used to be able to buy it new from B&H Photo! Clearly those eBay sellers are dreaming. 
Anyway, that was just one example which might have been applicable but isn't now, so I don't rule out the possibilities of something like that perhaps popping up again in the future especially if you very keenly look around for secondhand deals. But for over 95% of people reading this, that won't be applicable, and just stick to going with one of the main ones I mentioned earlier.
 
http://ironfilm.co.nz/which-sound-recorder-to-buy-a-guide-to-various-indie-priced-sound-recorders-in-2017/

False, nope, as nope I don't buy that for a second.

Hey no worries am not offended just putting over another viewpoint - to me the price of the 2 cameras in question is fs7 territory which has been gobbling up the mid tier market for a while now and so their 4k 10 bit XAVC codec has become well established and often asked for - mainly production companies with in house editors in my experience - and going forward it would be foolish of me not to buy a camera that offers this. If you've ever played around and pushed log footage in 8 bit and then 10 bit the difference becomes fairly obvious. Admittedly Canon clog in 8 bit plays nicer than Sony's 8 bit slog2 and especially slog3 - but times have moved on and we are now talking about clog3 with the c200, and hopefully more than 12 stops of dr. 10 bit would make this so much easier to work with

Curiously people keep confusing a M4/3s sensor with a M4/3s mount....if I had to change all the mounts on my legacy glass using something like Leitax mounts to adapt to EF mounts, that alone will cost me over 2000 and then I lose the ability to squeeze a GH5 into a tight space for a car interior or grab a quick handheld IBIS shot....for me the negatives with this mount are considerable...If we acquired the Varicam for a feature, production would buy a PL mount and I would rent Arri masterprimes and shoot BCam on the GH5 in tight spots...so the mount on the EVA for me is a dealbreaker...in all other ways it makes the C200 look like a badly thought out joke to me!!
Alonso curious about what so many Canon "color science" lovers are doing in the Panasonic thread lol???....not enough excitement going on in the C200 thread...this feels like the GH5 all is revealed thread starting anew....probably deep down everyone loves Panasonic and is looking for a group intervention to bring them around!!!?????

Your obsession with RAW has very little basis in how 95% of people are going to use this camera... no production companies I know will touch RAW, but the mid tier ones do want a decent 4k 10 bit file (If the Canon c200 had 4k 10 bit I would be seriously considering that too). They are both great sounding cameras but are aiming at different folk with different needs - no need to keep trying to think of ways it's not as good as your beloved Canon...
And until they actually announce the actual price we don't know for definite how much the EVA is. It was mentioned in another thread that  Panasonic said the hvx200 was going to be under $10k when 1st announced and it came in at $6k...granted that is an extreme example but let's just wait and see. Am excited for both cameras, they both have their strengths and weaknesses

Tiny fanless camera with ProRes and RAW to SD cards, released in 2013:
 

Got it Glenn? Told you... GH5 rocks man, gonna buy one ; )
Or simply go to fake an orgasm and sell your content's workflow as politically acquired... : D They're asking for, though ;-)
 
Nice guide anyway. That 240 Mbps rate is actually outstanding. Really. Means technology is finally democratized. 

Are we going on a double date?

Anyway, I agree such discussions and not terribly practical! But they are FUN :-D 

Plus sometimes interesting and practical points do arise naturally from such discussions. 

Are we going on a double date?

Anyway, I agree such discussions and not terribly practical! But they are FUN :-D 

Plus sometimes interesting and practical points do arise naturally from such discussions. 

Are we going on a double date?

Anyway, I agree such discussions and not terribly practical! But they are FUN :-D 

Plus sometimes interesting and practical points do arise naturally from such discussions. 

So you've got story and sound sorted and your cologne research can help when they release smell-o-vision.

* Bitrate of at least 240 Mbps (at 23.98/24 fps) recording
So after the '400Mbps' firmware update, 4K 10-bit log GH5 should be good to go!

There's a wide-ranging misunderstanding of Nyquist sampling theory when it comes to images, and I think you might be following that widely-publicized misunderstanding. If not, my apologizes but I think it's such an interesting topic (which I was totally wrong about for years) that I will butt in:
Nyquist does not apply to image sensors how many people think it does. A 4k sensor actually CAN resolve a full 4K (well, technically anything less than 4k so 99.99%) signal, and fully. It's only Bayer interpolation and the presence of anti-aliasing filters that reduces this number in a meaningful way. 
What it boils down to is that a line pair represents a full signal wave. Yes, you can only fully capture less than 2048 line pairs in 4k without aliasing, as per Nyquist. But that's still 4096 lines. So... with a Foveon or monochrome sensor you can capture full 4k with no aliasing on a 4k sensor. Really! You can! (Assuming you also have a high pass filter with 100% mtf below 4k and 0% mtf above 4k. Which... doesn't exist... but still.)
The other point of confusion is the idea that a line pair on a normal resolution chart represents a sine wave. It doesn't. And THAT is 99% of the reason why there's aliasing on all these test charts. It represents a sawtooth wave, which has infinitely high overtones. So mtf should be measured with a sinusoidal zone plate only, as the Nyquist theorem applies to sine waves specifically (well, it applies to anything, but sawtooth waves are effectively of infinite frequency because they contain infinite high odd order harmonics). Since most resolution charts are lines–sawtooth–waves, rather than sinusoidal gradients, even the lowest resolution lines are actually of effectively infinite frequency. Which might be another reason why you see such poorly reconstructed lines and false colors around the very high contrast areas of the window in Yedlin's test in the other thread.
To that extent, the use of anti-aliasing filters is more just "whatever works" for a given camera to split the difference between sharpness and aliasing, and not correlated with Nyquist in any specific way. Bayer patterns I believe remove a little less than 30% of linear resolution, but in practice it looks a lot sharper than 70% sharpness due to advanced algorithms and due to aliasing providing the illusion of resolution... 
So the resolution issue requiring over-sampling is due to anti-aliasing filters and Bayer pattern sensors and balancing things out between them so you get a sharp enough image with low enough aliasing. It's not Nyquist eating half your spatial resolution. I'm no engineer by any means and I have made this mistake in the past and now feel guilty for spreading misinformation online.
Also, I'm normally an 8-bit-is-fine-for-me-and-probably-for-everyone type person, but for next generation HDR wide gamut content you need 10 bit color and a wide gamut sensor. I think Netflix is going for a future proof thing and perhaps it is due to legal. That is a very astute comment. It's not an aesthetic choice, but a legal one. Otherwise, anything could be called "true 4k." (Fwiw you can include small amounts of b cam footage shot on other cameras or even stock footage.)

Netflix charges more for 4K content subscription access, and thus wants more "real 4K" content. Perhaps the lawyers mucked this up so people (external lawyers, lol) wouldn't litigate? Everyone at the professional level knows that uprez'd 3.4K Alexa footage spanks most of the competition, and most consumers wouldn't care anyways, even those paying for the 4K sub since it still looks way better than 1080p when viewed on a 4K display sufficiently up close.
While a test chart would show truth, I've seen people say crazy things about test chart results, so maybe just sticking with numbers/specs gets them close enough to their 4K goal with the least drama.
Lol what does this say about your post?  

What I am confused about is why Netflix cares - I mean if all their original content was shot on Alexa's like the majority of high budget movies, are their customers going to ditch Netflix because that Alexa 2K looks so crap compared to a RED/Sony image...