aldolega

It's still pre-release firmware, I think we should save the condemnations for the final release version.

Yea, you can get a faster lens, or switch to a booster system, but sometimes you need a deeper-than-two-inch DOF, though... and that's when high (6400+) ISO performance becomes irreplaceable. Shooting a naturally-dim/dark scene at F8 with very little noise is a unique look, and really only the Sonys can do it right now.

Uh, no. He's asking which Lens Turbo to get, not which lenses.
He should get Nikon lenses, and an EF Lens Turbo, if he wants maximum adaptability.
Nikon lenses have one of the longest-flange mounts.
Canon EF is the shortest-flange mount the Lens Turbo comes in, that has adapters available for longer mounts. FD is actually shorter but adapters to FD mount are pretty hard to find.
None of the Lens Turbo II's have electronics, and are all the same price.

Like this?

If so, that's the first version of the EF-m4/3 booster, which is .71x power.
The Ultra is a new version of this, still .71x, but with slightly revised optics.
The XL is .64x.
And you're right, the Ultra and XL are both labeled as such with yellow writing. So you almost definitely had the first .71x version.
Someone could probably drop those two screenshots into Photoshop and measure the crop factor and we could know for sure...

I think it's important to remember that h264 has many flavors for different applications, and at this point they are all pretty mature, and have been tweaked and tuned and tested for almost a decade now to their maximum potential; some for consumer applications where low bitrate/easy en/de-coding is priority over IQ, and some for prosumers/pros who demand quality and have the hardware/software to work with the higher profiles and bitrates. Look at the difference between stock GH2 and the mature hack settings; both are h264, but the tuned settings are undoubtedly better quality.
h265 is new and mostly the only implementations I know of outside of the NX1 have been video chat, mobile platforms etc where again low bitrate and easy en/de-coding are the priority. The NX1's h265 implementation seems decent for a first go, certainly better than early h264; but the bitrate hacks have shown it can be improved, and (AFAIK) the present hacks are only allowing a higher bitrate, not tuning/altering the encoding itself. So when the camera companies' engineers (and hopefully hackers, if they are able to get deep into the NX1 or another h265 camera) start going to a higher bitrate and tuning/tweaking the encoding implentation itself: I think there could be big gains made.

Yea, you can get a faster lens, or switch to a booster system, but sometimes you need a deeper-than-two-inch DOF, though... and that's when high (6400+) ISO performance becomes irreplaceable. Shooting a naturally-dim/dark scene at F8 with very little noise is a unique look, and really only the Sonys can do it right now.

The argument for in-camera NR is that it is working with the raw sensor data, whereas with NR in post you're working with the compressed codec (on non-raw-video cams of course) and thus much less data. 

I think it's important to remember that h264 has many flavors for different applications, and at this point they are all pretty mature, and have been tweaked and tuned and tested for almost a decade now to their maximum potential; some for consumer applications where low bitrate/easy en/de-coding is priority over IQ, and some for prosumers/pros who demand quality and have the hardware/software to work with the higher profiles and bitrates. Look at the difference between stock GH2 and the mature hack settings; both are h264, but the tuned settings are undoubtedly better quality.
h265 is new and mostly the only implementations I know of outside of the NX1 have been video chat, mobile platforms etc where again low bitrate and easy en/de-coding are the priority. The NX1's h265 implementation seems decent for a first go, certainly better than early h264; but the bitrate hacks have shown it can be improved, and (AFAIK) the present hacks are only allowing a higher bitrate, not tuning/altering the encoding itself. So when the camera companies' engineers (and hopefully hackers, if they are able to get deep into the NX1 or another h265 camera) start going to a higher bitrate and tuning/tweaking the encoding implentation itself: I think there could be big gains made.

I think it's important to remember that h264 has many flavors for different applications, and at this point they are all pretty mature, and have been tweaked and tuned and tested for almost a decade now to their maximum potential; some for consumer applications where low bitrate/easy en/de-coding is priority over IQ, and some for prosumers/pros who demand quality and have the hardware/software to work with the higher profiles and bitrates. Look at the difference between stock GH2 and the mature hack settings; both are h264, but the tuned settings are undoubtedly better quality.
h265 is new and mostly the only implementations I know of outside of the NX1 have been video chat, mobile platforms etc where again low bitrate and easy en/de-coding are the priority. The NX1's h265 implementation seems decent for a first go, certainly better than early h264; but the bitrate hacks have shown it can be improved, and (AFAIK) the present hacks are only allowing a higher bitrate, not tuning/altering the encoding itself. So when the camera companies' engineers (and hopefully hackers, if they are able to get deep into the NX1 or another h265 camera) start going to a higher bitrate and tuning/tweaking the encoding implentation itself: I think there could be big gains made.

Go for the 25mm, unless you have to shoot in an extremely small space.

So it would basically be the same rule it seems most have adopted for the GH4- stick to normal gammas with 8-bit (in-camera), and use 10-bit for V-Log (i.e. add a recorder). Just with the GH5, going to 10-bit is only a matter of switching a couple settings, instead of dragging out the recorder, and the SSD's, and the HDMI cable, and the rigging...
Sounds like I will just be setting one of the custom modes on the dial to 4K60p with Cinelike D at Leeming LUT settings, and another to 4K30 with V-Log and the preview LUT. Should be pretty simple to switch between them.
As someone who shoots a lot of motion, the only things I'm worried about are the possibility of ghosting from temporal NR, and the haloing that @anti12 just posted is worrisome too. It seems like with every GH release the engineers do their best to deliver the most nail-bitingly-sharpened-and-processed image they can, and we all spend the first month or two with the camera just trying to dial that out of the picture. It would be really nice if, right off the bat, we could have the option to not just turn down, but turn off the extra processing and NR, instead of waiting/hoping for a firmware update that lets us do so.

You can use the 17-55mm f2.8 with a speedbooster if you remove the plastic baffle on the back of the lens, which sticks into the mount and will hit the front element in the speedbooster. If you do a bit of googling you will find more info on this.
I would recommend getting a .71x booster over the XL .64x version. Less danger of vignetting and more future-proof, as the GH5 uses the whole sensor width for all video modes.
Canon 17-55 f2.8 vs. Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is something you have to decide for yourself. If you need IS or the larger range, the Canon is your choice, but you will need a proper Metabones booster, as that has electronics to power the lens for aperture control and IS. If speed is your primary concern go for the Sigma. If you get a Nikon mount Sigma you can use a "dumb" booster and that saves some money.
Don't waste your money on any generic booster other than a Mitakon/Zhongyi Lens Turbo II. The cheaper ones have awful flare problems, or are soft.

You can use the 17-55mm f2.8 with a speedbooster if you remove the plastic baffle on the back of the lens, which sticks into the mount and will hit the front element in the speedbooster. If you do a bit of googling you will find more info on this.
I would recommend getting a .71x booster over the XL .64x version. Less danger of vignetting and more future-proof, as the GH5 uses the whole sensor width for all video modes.
Canon 17-55 f2.8 vs. Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is something you have to decide for yourself. If you need IS or the larger range, the Canon is your choice, but you will need a proper Metabones booster, as that has electronics to power the lens for aperture control and IS. If speed is your primary concern go for the Sigma. If you get a Nikon mount Sigma you can use a "dumb" booster and that saves some money.
Don't waste your money on any generic booster other than a Mitakon/Zhongyi Lens Turbo II. The cheaper ones have awful flare problems, or are soft.

You can use the 17-55mm f2.8 with a speedbooster if you remove the plastic baffle on the back of the lens, which sticks into the mount and will hit the front element in the speedbooster. If you do a bit of googling you will find more info on this.
I would recommend getting a .71x booster over the XL .64x version. Less danger of vignetting and more future-proof, as the GH5 uses the whole sensor width for all video modes.
Canon 17-55 f2.8 vs. Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is something you have to decide for yourself. If you need IS or the larger range, the Canon is your choice, but you will need a proper Metabones booster, as that has electronics to power the lens for aperture control and IS. If speed is your primary concern go for the Sigma. If you get a Nikon mount Sigma you can use a "dumb" booster and that saves some money.
Don't waste your money on any generic booster other than a Mitakon/Zhongyi Lens Turbo II. The cheaper ones have awful flare problems, or are soft.

When compared to FF video (16x9 cut of a 24X36mm sensor), the GH5 with the XL booster would be a 1.33x crop, and with the Ultra booster it'd be 1.47x.
Remember that the XL is less uniform in sharpness across the frame- it is a little sharper than the Ultra in the middle, but softer outside of that. The Ultra is more consistent.
Also remember that with the sensor moving due to IBIS, you end up effectively using a larger image circle than without IBIS. So even if IBIS only moves the sensor a mm in each direction,  your 13x19mm sensor now needs an image circle that can cover 15x21mm.
So APS-C lenses with small image circles, like the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, which barely cover the sensor with the XL booster, may now go soft or dark in the corners as IBIS shifts the sensor. Or worse yet, you may have the actual edge of the image circle show up as black corners.
This is why I think it's safer to go with the Ultra booster for the GH5.

When compared to FF video (16x9 cut of a 24X36mm sensor), the GH5 with the XL booster would be a 1.33x crop, and with the Ultra booster it'd be 1.47x.
Remember that the XL is less uniform in sharpness across the frame- it is a little sharper than the Ultra in the middle, but softer outside of that. The Ultra is more consistent.
Also remember that with the sensor moving due to IBIS, you end up effectively using a larger image circle than without IBIS. So even if IBIS only moves the sensor a mm in each direction,  your 13x19mm sensor now needs an image circle that can cover 15x21mm.
So APS-C lenses with small image circles, like the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, which barely cover the sensor with the XL booster, may now go soft or dark in the corners as IBIS shifts the sensor. Or worse yet, you may have the actual edge of the image circle show up as black corners.
This is why I think it's safer to go with the Ultra booster for the GH5.

When compared to FF video (16x9 cut of a 24X36mm sensor), the GH5 with the XL booster would be a 1.33x crop, and with the Ultra booster it'd be 1.47x.
Remember that the XL is less uniform in sharpness across the frame- it is a little sharper than the Ultra in the middle, but softer outside of that. The Ultra is more consistent.
Also remember that with the sensor moving due to IBIS, you end up effectively using a larger image circle than without IBIS. So even if IBIS only moves the sensor a mm in each direction,  your 13x19mm sensor now needs an image circle that can cover 15x21mm.
So APS-C lenses with small image circles, like the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, which barely cover the sensor with the XL booster, may now go soft or dark in the corners as IBIS shifts the sensor. Or worse yet, you may have the actual edge of the image circle show up as black corners.
This is why I think it's safer to go with the Ultra booster for the GH5.

The VA4K requires UHS-II cards, the G85 is compatible with UHS-II but doesn't need them, and UHS-II is way more expensive, so why bother?
I will second the suggestion of Sandisk Extreme Pro cards. Just make sure to buy from an authorized dealer so that you get a genuine card, there are a lot of fakes out there. And get the newer versions which are marked U3, they actually perform the same as the original U1 version, but some cameras will perform a check for the U3 designation, and will refuse the U1 cards, even though they're more than fast enough.

Yes, the latest firmware makes the 5" VA a pretty competent monitor. All it really needs now is waveform and a loupe. I'm planning on running one with a G85, because of the cam's weak 1080p bitrate. Vitaliy at Personal-View said the Chinese are working on an aftermarket 5" loupe, hopefully that happens, I'm hoping a sunhood will suffice until then.

Is it really so much for us to ask for it to have a coffeemaker built in, though? I mean we've got IBIS now, so caffeine jitters won't be an issue. This is obviously the next logical step here.

Yea, a super FS5 is more of what I was picturing- still m4/3, real video camera shape, but very small for such, and bigger than the GHs... just big enough to have real controls, ergos, XLR, ND, etc. Although then you're not a whole lot bigger than the GH5 with the XLR box, so maybe it's just not worth it at that point. And the GH5/XLR combo is pretty similar to the C100 shape and layout. Just needs a rotating grip and a tilting EVF.

You just need the right adapter, with the Metabeans Speed Roaster your GH5 can do an espresso just fine! 
Just make sure your sensor gets really hot!

Is it really so much for us to ask for it to have a coffeemaker built in, though? I mean we've got IBIS now, so caffeine jitters won't be an issue. This is obviously the next logical step here.

Is it really so much for us to ask for it to have a coffeemaker built in, though? I mean we've got IBIS now, so caffeine jitters won't be an issue. This is obviously the next logical step here.

Is it really so much for us to ask for it to have a coffeemaker built in, though? I mean we've got IBIS now, so caffeine jitters won't be an issue. This is obviously the next logical step here.