fuzzynormal

**** this discussion. Every time it's brought up people argue about it endlessly.

I dunno.
choreograph dancers doing indentical specific movement inside the suits and out side the suits?
Superimpose the normal dancers into the chroma key dancers of numerous outdoor static shots.  
The slightly off set nature of the movement would create really odd, distorted, but fluid images at the same time. 
Or maybe, if you want to be metaphoric, have wildly gestulating dancers "inside" the shapes of people acting "normal," like shopping, banking, socializing, etc.
the inner id of people that's not allowed to escape, for example. 

Guilty as charged. I can't escape it in the corporate video world. 

Buy an old laptop.  Mac or PC.  You may not want to use a laptop, but it's reliable and cheap.

I do wonder if, instead of debating about the tool, we should consider that the value of aerial shots is overrated?

Yes. Normal. Thus, worthwhile?  In other words, since the thing is easily do-able and many many people are capable of doing it, what value does it have?
Should one use it just because one can, or can the visuals it offers be implemented creatively?
I had a corporate client demand it on a recent production "just because," and I felt it ultimately looked ridiculous. Ostentatious for no particular reason.  It actually was detrimental to the video. The shots had no motivation. They were just there because the client thought it looked cool. 

If it finishes being like this with a decent tracking and without the distracting hunt I'm sold. I mean, I'm there already throwing money to the screen, but I must be doing something wrong; still no camera. I can't imagine how the people waiting for the GH5 feel!

Fair enough. Good luck. 

I'm not taking the tinfoil off my head for anything.

I'm not taking the tinfoil off my head for anything.

I'm not taking the tinfoil off my head for anything.

I'm not taking the tinfoil off my head for anything.

I'm not taking the tinfoil off my head for anything.

Directly editing h.264 just stinks.  Even on a zippy machine.  It'll work --and I do it all the time for short TRT projects, but I still like to edit with transcoded files.  Or, better yet, edit with proxies.  Once you start doing that, a modern machine will slice and scroll through stuff without much effort.  It's pretty cool.
Lagging video when trying to set heads/tails or just previewing a clip is the worst.
Premiere CC 2015.3 has been very effective for me with proxies.  My assistant editor even does work on our 7 year old Mac with LUMIX UHD footage.  Works great.  With proxies you can use cheap slow drives for editing, so it's a great way to stretch a budget and still be productive.
FCPX is also well regarded in this area too.
Resolve also does "proxies" by creating "Optimized" media, but I had a hell of a time making that work.  Too buggy.  Moved onto Premiere.  Not my fav editing platform, but it's robust enough to handle my documentary workload.  Decent media management tools too, I think.

I couldn't get optimized media to work reliably with h.264 footage in Resolve. Maybe with raw it's better. I'd like to know your experience with it once you give it a shot. 

The GX85 seems like the best value on the market if you're a shooter desiring 5-axis stabilization.  It's a cheap cam with good IQ and the 5-axis works quite well.
Who can argue with that?
Would I say it's a great camera overall?  No.  But it's an AWESOME camera if you're buying it to do what it's strengths allow you to do --'kuz you get more for less.

Why not?  If you're going to be shooting 1080p, then I don't think there's a big difference, if any at all.  In fact, the GX7 has the same sensor in it as the GH4.  It's just that the Gx7 doesn't shoot 4k.  You can get the same IQ for 2/3rds less cost.
Anyway, I don't know what you're up to as far as shooting goes, I mean you're decisions should reflect the direct needs of the production. Still, I'd worry more about getting useful lenses for whatever you want to do rather than camera bodies.
Really, cameras these days...they're all good.  How you use 'em, what glass you decide to use --that has a bigger factor in the cinematic quality of your project.
That's my camera agnostic viewpoint anyway.  
On the other hand, if you're going for something specific, like shooting a doc at night time, then an a7s would be a decent choice.  Think of buying a camera body like deciding what film stock to use. 

The GX85 seems like the best value on the market if you're a shooter desiring 5-axis stabilization.  It's a cheap cam with good IQ and the 5-axis works quite well.
Who can argue with that?
Would I say it's a great camera overall?  No.  But it's an AWESOME camera if you're buying it to do what it's strengths allow you to do --'kuz you get more for less.

The GX85 seems like the best value on the market if you're a shooter desiring 5-axis stabilization.  It's a cheap cam with good IQ and the 5-axis works quite well.
Who can argue with that?
Would I say it's a great camera overall?  No.  But it's an AWESOME camera if you're buying it to do what it's strengths allow you to do --'kuz you get more for less.

I've been enamored with shooting 5-axis stabilization.  It's undeniably a great tool and I do rely on it for a lot of work.
Utilizing it for over a year now, and now the motion pictures are tending to look uninspired to me.  I'm finding myself drawn back to the sloppiness of true hand held.  I don't know.  Maybe because strong IBIS has been such a constant in my work, the opposite approach is now more tantalizing than the current?
There's an organic energy in the connection of a (good-not-bad) hand-held shooter to the camera.   A 5-axis camera can dull it.  Add to the fact that I've really leaned on using slow-mo and combined it with 5-axis...for no good reason other than I can do it, if I'm being honest...
Eh, is it true when they say, "the grass is always greener?"
Anyone else that been dabbling in 5-axis questioning it?  Perhaps it's because my work has been "rely"-ing on it...maybe that's the issue.  Why should I rely on a feature that much?  Is it necessary?  Maybe in my older age I'm just yearning for nostalgia and basic simple shooting reminds me of that?
It's interesting because I'm old enough to recall how the hand-held aesthetic upset so many traditional cinema folks as it came into wildly adopted vogue years ago.
Is my 5-axis romance just a "phase?"

Occasional?  
I scan channels on my G3 before every shoot, set my frequency, and I still get interference often.  Been in the city a lot so I guess that's the issue.  Lots of radio waves flying' 'round.  The spectrum is only going to get more crowded into the future.  How viable is wireless in these environments, really?
Here's the thing, the work I do, if something is going bad I really can't do anything about it in the moment, so ultimately (and god help you if you're an audio guy reading this) monitoring a wireless system does nothing but tell me what I'm getting might be dropping out or squelching every once in awhile.  So, that's nice to know, but again, I can't really interrupt the moments and do anything about it... and, since that's the case, why not just carefully place a wired lav on my subject and hope for the best?  After all, that's what I'm doing with my G3 wireless anyway.
I'm one guy with a camera following my documentary subject.  Yes, there's the "right" way to do audio, and then there's the "actually-productive-on-a-shoe-string-budget-way."  
Poo-poo that if you must.  I'd love to be able to monitor and fix all my audio with whatever problems arise, but there are times I just can't.  Wireless that's monitored is usually the best solution.  Maybe in other situations it is not.    
Audio solutions are like video solutions.  I'm not shooting 8-bit on a GX85 because it's the best camera. I'm using it because I think it's the best solution for my particular job.  Similarly, unmonitored wired solutions like the DR10L is a viable tool for certain gigs.  I kinda feel like it's deserving consideration.
 

6.5 stops of stabilization with their sync lens(es). 4K video.  Seems too good to pass up.  Unless they botch the IQ tremendously (which they most likely won't) I'll be considering it when released.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but but problem with that video is that it's poorly shot, not that the 5axis is introducing some jitter into the motion image. (Which it does)
Long fast handheld pans?  Sorry, but 5axis isn't going to help in that scenario. So, the solution?  Don't do ridiculous long and fast handheld panning shots.  Easy enough  
Look, good shots need a good shooter. I don't care if you're filming with an Alexa and the worlds most expensive gimbal. If you don't know what you're doing within the limits of the gear, you're going to create garbage. 
The thing that footage is good for is recognizing the patameters of the stabilizing tech. 
If you suffer from the delusion that 5axis is going to make bad footage good...well, this should disavow you of that notion. 

Natural Color Profile: 0,-5,-5,-2.
Indoor shots with a 55mm FD lens, Chinese Speedbooster, no filters.
Stabilizer set to 40mm
Highlights set to -2
White Balance Adjust A:3 G:3 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sqfycip8z52s3z9/AADEWeIG1R1i1hUObtrLGlrea?dl=0

FWIW, I've been doing proxies with Premiere (CC 2015.3) and it's been breezy.  Attempted it with Resolve, had to give up; not ready for PrimeTime. 
Testimony I hear from FCPX says that proxies work well.
Basically, proxies allow me to edit documentary work easily.  Makes the editing interface snappier.  I can do everything I need to do quickly.  Upon final export, the renderer uses the 4K source files, so it's really a good way to go.  No need to transcode to a mezzanine format.  I just use the default low-res cineform template when importing footage into my project. 
BTW, even with a snappy PC loaded with ram and Navidia1080, I use proxies.  I can absolutely edit h264 4K on my machine, but it will get laggy with longer edits, so why bother?  Just let Premiere make proxies and get to work. 
In fact, the assistant editor accesses the proxies across the LAN and works on the same Premiere project as me using an 8 year old iMac.
On the other hand, I'm not comfortable on Premiere quite yet.  It does the job, but it feels slightly clunky interface-wise.  Not fond of the way it handles media in projects.  Whereas on FCP7 I could import sequences from project to project without importing the corresponding media used in those sequences.  You can't do that with Premiere.  If you bring in a sequence it needs to have the media clips residing independently inside the project.  It's been a hassle with adding steps to my workflow.  Nothing I can't handle, just a nuisance. 
I'd suggest you could edit 4K footage via proxies on a machine like that for years to come.  Sure, you'll need more time on the output render, but at that point I usually like to get away from the project.  Still, a scraming machine will crunch the numbers faster.  Sometimes that's required.
BTW, the GUI works better with Premiere and OSX than Premiere and Win10.  I often have to double or triple click the "triangles" to activate them.  Keyframing with Premiere for Win10 isn't as smooth as OSX.
So yeah, GUI responsiveness, never really something on a spec sheet, but take my word for it, they aren't equal.  OSX (even an old Mac computer with OSX) works better.