noone

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they?  I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.   

There is SO much wrong with that video.
He really handicaps the larger sensor cameras by not using primes (he prefers to use zooms) and only one particular zoom (he could have used the other 1.8 zoom I guess too).
      The ONLY way the GH5 "wins" is IF you use the 1.8 Sigma zoom and a Speedbooster and you don't use a similar fast zoom (Sigma 24-35 f2) with or without a focal reducer OR a fast prime on the larger sensor cameras.
On top of that I don't see the Gh5 "winning" there in many instances at all even as it is.
What happens if you need deeper DOF at high ISOs or if you are at ISO 25600 and up and are using a fast prime as well?
GH5 looks very nice and that combination (GH5, Speed Booster and Sigma 1.8 zoom) will be usable in lower lighting than a FF camera and slower lens in many cases but that does not make the GH5 a better low light camera than the others "tested" there.
I will still gratefully accept any GH5 that isn't wanted by the buyer.        Would love to use one as a decent daytime/good light/controlled light camera.

Well I am sort of a big fan of the A7s because I don't see a lot of situations where you can use f .9 and get anything in focus. I know on a m4/3 camera that is really f 1.8, but that is still some narrow ass DoF to play with.
So I think using a A7s in dark portions of a shoot IS a damn good option to have. Would I have it as my main camera all the time. Well, if I had enough money to have it as a "B", camera well no. But as your Only camera, I can think of a hell of a lot worse ones to have.
Now trying to cut it into a movie with a Gh4, GH5, well that would not be easy as hell I would admit. With a A6300, A6500 now that works.

Some ppl has become too allergic to a noise. Noise is there, if it looks like fine grain then it's ok. If its is like nasty artefacts then remove it. But an ad to that Sony a6300 is quite clean in S-log2 up to ISO 16.000.  And in photos, not bad at all. (ISO 8000) 

My first couple of tests with the GH5 show that Natural is the best picture profile, as it was on the GH3 also. When everything turned down -3 or -4 (contrast / saturation), there isn't much difference with it's close contender Cinelike D. Mind you, Cinelike D is flatter but also some color tonalities are lost. Especially in the greens.
Cinelike D might show a small improvement in DR, but never more than a (0.5) stop. With Filmconvert applied with it's standard curve, the difference in dynamic range is lost and Natural wins with better colors. Some grass for instance has a yellow tinge to it in real life and on Natural, which just becomes a single colored green on Cinelike D.

So for me it will be Natural as the way to go. Like709 has the best colors out of the box, but not the best DR without tweaking every shot which I'm not going to do when shooting weddings. I didn't get the V-LOG update though so I can't comment on that.
Forget about Portrait, Standard, Vivid, etc. I see no reason to shoot in those profiles as they don't offer any more 'natural' color over Natural and no improvement in DR or gradeabillity whatsoever. 
Then the stabilizer. I'm using a Sigma 18-35 with a SpeedBooster XL, so not supported by the camera. I have to manually input the focal length and naturally I can not make us of Dual IS. My findings are that it works fine for handheld shots which are pretty steady or make a small movement or pan. However, I tried to walk with it on and it mostly gave pretty poor results. Similar to warp stabilizer, it was warping all over the place on the side of my screen. Don't expect miracles if you don't have native lenses is my take on it. Oh yea, and it DRAINS your battery. With the GH3 I could go for hours on a single battery. Today I almost went through a full charge in like 90 minutes.
What else? The 4K at 50p is astounding. The image is chrystal clear without being oversharpened. It's not lacking DR unless you start pushing it with very contrasty situations.The VFR is very fun to play with. 120-180 fps is astounding. It's as sharp as a GH3 / GH4 at 1080p, but more prone to moire and aliassing. You have to make sure you have the background (bricks, buildings, trees) out of focus and then you're good to go. Instant production-value.
The camera feels sturdy and professional. The full-sized HDMI is the finishing touch. Recording simultaneously to dual SD cards is a blessing, especially when shooting important events like weddings. No more nervously taking the SD-card out of the camera and put in my computer with shaking hands praying to God that the footage is okay and the card is undamaged. 
Cons I've seen so far:
- Incorrect exposure when having VFR selected in combination with shutter-angle. You aren't shown the correct exposure of the shot until you press the record button. This needs to be adressed. 
- Not as impressed with IBIS as I had hoped for. 
- Battery life decreased. Probably due to Stabilizer and or dual card recording
- Image needs heavy grading to be 'filmic'. But this is the same for all Panasonic camera's and I've learned to deal with it
Great step-up from the GH3 which I've used for 4 years with great pleasure. If the GH5 proves to be as reliable as the GH3, I'm a very happy customer.
Here's the one of the first films I've shot with the GH3. I'm still surprised with what that little camera can do. If you don't have the money, you don't need a GH5 or an upgrade. But if you do, it's great fun and you feel like the future is here.
 

Picture style 'portrait', set sharpness to -3 adjust contrast between -3 and 0 depending on the contrast ratio of the scene. Set Zebras to 100+% and don't clip important highlights. You can't go below 100iso so if you want to shoot with wide apertures you will need an ND filter unless you break the 180deg shutter rule.........

I think everything up to and including ISO6400 should be considered quite normal generic territory. It's great the GH5 is now very capable at ISO3200. But that's nowhere near 'low light monster' levels, no? Go up from ISO6400 and every expensive Sony more or less handles ISO12800 as a champ. ISO25600, because why not... and only then are we starting to get somewhere in the monster levels... ISO51200, 102400, 204800, 409600! Absolutely unneccessary, but cool.
Think it's more for stuff like https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/multi-purpose-cameras/me20f-sh & https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-pov/product-UMCS3C%2FP/ . MFT would help considerably keeping the set-up small and stealthy, so that might be the whole 'why' around this.

And in the meantime, not producing anything of note. This can go on for years as people await the next great instalment until one day they die with a showreel containing one cat from 1972.

Small full frame bodies that can take any lens that covers the sensor. That's basically it.

Are you SURE? ;-) 

if there are any charity shops near you, ask them if they have any tripods.      They may have something out the back.
Tripods may not be looked on as something having any real value (like old cameras for example).      You would be lucky to find a decent fluid head tripod but you never know.
A charity shop I know usually has one or two out the back from all sorts of makers.
I recently paid $5 Australian for a very nice Vanguard  Pan head  tripod that can hold up a battleship there and it is in excellent condition.     Not the highest end but still would have been a few hundred dollars new.
I missed out on a geared head tripod with all sorts of goodies by a few hours a couple of months ago ( I think someone overheard me talking about it and went and got it).
Certainly worth investigating anyway.
Again, not high end and the head isn't detachable but certainly worth more than $5.
 

I will echo the advice to get the best tripod & head you can afford. You don't need to spend thousands, but you're probably looking at $300-400 to get something that's workable (unless you find a good used deal).
In my experience, those cheap Manfrottos with the one-sided tilt mechanisms are nearly useless- once you loosen the tilt lock knob, the tilt mechanism goes all wobbly. I would definitely get at least a used Manfrotto 701, which is workable. I used a 701 for a couple years, then went to a Benro S6, and then got REALLY lucky on a Sachtler Ace L with carbon legs on eBay.
The 701 was workable for a light setup, once I got used to the fixed drag. The S6 was a good step up, it was nice to have adjustable tilt drag and adjustable counterbalance. The lack of a pan drag adjustment sucks though, and overall it's built pretty cheaply- plastic knobs, plate release button was sticky, etc. Both the 701 and S6 are dampened, but I wouldn't quite call them smooth.
The Sachtler is a whole 'nother league. Smooth as silk, drag on both axes can go light or nice 'n heavy, counterbalance is more finely adjustable. Having a bowl mount is really nice. Everything about it is really nice, and it makes using my old tripods feel awful, haha. And it's not just a placebo effect- I can see a definite difference in my shots with it.

To the OP - forget doing pans if you are on such a small budget and get a sturdy stills photography tripod with pan and tilt head. Once you need to pan it gets very expensive as the legs have to be super stiff to resist twisting which causes backlash / bounce at the end of a pan (The best for this are the twin tube designs) and a proper fluid head to get the smooth motion and be adjustable to a range of speeds and camera weights can't be engineered cheaply.

A7s is smaller and lighter than the G85 (A7sii is larger), who knows what the A7siii will be.     You can use the same lenses on the A7s cameras.    To me, the A7s cameras are far better in the field.
The A7 cameras have greater lens choice actually as you can use all the lenses available for M4/3 and M4/3 lenses if you want but you can not use E mount lenses on M4/3.
The FD lenses ARE FF lenses.    IBIS is nice but the A7s cameras need it less than any other I have used and again, who knows how well it will work in the A7siii.   
My GX7 has terrible IBIS for stills and non existent for video just as the first A7s doesn't have it, the second does.   It gets better with each generation.
No, it just means you can use a fast lens and keep your ISO lower than with a slower lens but you can do that with an A7s series camera as well.       Plus the A7s cameras have an APSC mode for double duty (not so great for stills with the lower pixel count but for video is useful).     What are you going to match an A7s and FF 50 f0.95 lens with?
 
The FD lenses will work just fine (better as far as I am concerned) on the A7s cameras.      I love my FD 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 lenses but they are much better for me on the A7s than the M4/3 camera (and the combination would weigh less on my A7s than they would on your G85).     You would need a 12mm f0.7 to match the 24 and a 42.5 f0.6 to match the 85.
Manual focus is excellent with the A7 series cameras (better for me than anything else I have used) but is also great with EF mount lenses.
The TS-E lenses for instance, I think are better  (easier to use at least on the A7 cameras) than on any current Canon camera.
I love M4/3 but for low light, there is NO comparison as far as I am concerned.     Your G85 would be a much better general video camera to me than the A7s but low light? No, I don't think so.

A7s is smaller and lighter than the G85 (A7sii is larger), who knows what the A7siii will be.     You can use the same lenses on the A7s cameras.    To me, the A7s cameras are far better in the field.
The A7 cameras have greater lens choice actually as you can use all the lenses available for M4/3 and M4/3 lenses if you want but you can not use E mount lenses on M4/3.
The FD lenses ARE FF lenses.    IBIS is nice but the A7s cameras need it less than any other I have used and again, who knows how well it will work in the A7siii.   
My GX7 has terrible IBIS for stills and non existent for video just as the first A7s doesn't have it, the second does.   It gets better with each generation.
No, it just means you can use a fast lens and keep your ISO lower than with a slower lens but you can do that with an A7s series camera as well.       Plus the A7s cameras have an APSC mode for double duty (not so great for stills with the lower pixel count but for video is useful).     What are you going to match an A7s and FF 50 f0.95 lens with?
 
The FD lenses will work just fine (better as far as I am concerned) on the A7s cameras.      I love my FD 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 lenses but they are much better for me on the A7s than the M4/3 camera (and the combination would weigh less on my A7s than they would on your G85).     You would need a 12mm f0.7 to match the 24 and a 42.5 f0.6 to match the 85.
Manual focus is excellent with the A7 series cameras (better for me than anything else I have used) but is also great with EF mount lenses.
The TS-E lenses for instance, I think are better  (easier to use at least on the A7 cameras) than on any current Canon camera.
I love M4/3 but for low light, there is NO comparison as far as I am concerned.     Your G85 would be a much better general video camera to me than the A7s but low light? No, I don't think so.

To satisfy my curiosity (it has been a while since I used the variable zoom with my A7s in video), I just mounted an old crappy Canon 28-90 zoom on my A7s, mounted on a tripod and set it to 47mm then used Clearzoom (virtually lossless variable digital zoom to 2x) and zoomed in to 2x then back out, then I used the optical zoom to zoom to 90mm.
The Clearzoom actually looks better as the optical zoom is not parfocal  so is a bit out of focus at the end of the 90mm.    The optical zoom is also quite shaky (even on the tripod) while the digital zoom is smooth.
I am not going to post it as it is pretty lame and not a great lens but anyone with a Sony E mount camera with clearzoom and a zoom lens that covers 2x at least can test it.
For stills I would always prefer an optical zoom but for video in SOME circumstances, I would go with the digital zoom.

I don't want to derail the discussion about the GH5, but I hate seeing bad information out in the world, and just have to correct this.
For all intents and purposes, as long as the focal plane of the camera is in an identical place in the world between shots with different focal lengths, the effect is mathematically identical to a crop from a larger FOV to a smaller one.  In other words you can animate a crop on an image to recreate the effect of a zoom with a lens.
The only things that could possibly be different would be characteristics of the different lenses, such as pin cushion or barrel distortion throughout the zoom.  Of course there are going to be varying resolving differences depending on the technique used.  For example a digital zoom is going to reduce pixel resolution,  but an optical zoom is going to be affected by any resolving differences of the lens at different focal lengths.   That said, if you took a theoretically "perfect pinhole lens" and performed a zoom it would be identical to to a crop on an image with infinite resolution.
I've run into so many photographers who don't get this, but I think it's an important bit of information to keep in the back of your head while out shooting--  you can crop in on an image and  it will have the same basic effect as putting a longer lens on your camera.  What's neat about the GH5 is that trick doesn't seem to have much effect on the detail in the image, so it really effectively gives you two lenses which is very cool.
Just as a side note, that Jaws effect is achieved by combining a move through the environment combined with a zoom or crop in to keep the subject in the same scale in the frame.  The key to the effect is that the camera is moving and not in the same spot from the beginning to the end of the shot, so you are getting the parallax of moving the camera.  In fact even before digital, they used to do the effect using optical printers in the same way in which we can crop a shot today.

Of course it could be put out by a company (not Canon) that may have a GH5 killer camera coming that isn't quite ready yet.
That way, people hold off buying the GH5, get annoyed with Canon and then everyone migrates to the new flavour of the month.
Or it could actually be true but that remains to be seen.
For me the GH5 is in a different market segment for the most part to a 5Div.

Convince Panasonic to make it variable like Sony does, that way you get a whole range of focal lengths with the one lens or use a fast prime as a zoom (12 1.4  zoom lens anyone?).     Wonder if they could do that via firmware?

True. But considering the length and details about the rumor, it's hard to imagine that a fucker would have such a sucking life that he would do that for fun.

You can enter the serialnumber manually. No need to take a pic.
Easy to say but I hope so. If it was something very expensive I guess it would  instead strengthen my tenacity to track who originally stole it.
All I felth was that it wasn't the original owners fault. He has done absolutely nothing wrong. I could have done more research. 
Also it would be a crime (litterally) for me to keep it, use it or sell it. I dont want to be the criminal in this story 

When you buy and sell used camera gear  you need to be careful. A lot of stolen stuff floats around and markets like eBay makes it easy for them to disappear. That’s why a service like Stolen Camera Finder is a godsend.
http://www.stolencamerafinder.com/
I recently bought a Leica T. A lovely camera. For street shooting I would say its the best camera I’ve ever used. Totally in love!
But this is not about the camera.
The price was fine, the seller had a long history, everything seemed legit. He even provided the serial number.When I got it home I tested it out and everything was fine. The day after I had to leave for a tripp and I naturally brought the camera. It was not until I got home that I remembered that I should just do a routine check of the number on Stolen Camera Finder.
Why I didn’t do this beforehand, like I usually do is beyond me…
Stolen Camera Finder works by crawling the internet and sites like Flickr, registering EXIF Data.
In many cameras the unique serial number of the camera and lens are imbedded in the data. You then simply drag-n-drop an image on the site or enter the number manually. If the crawler gets a match its BINGO!
You can:
Find a stolen camera Report a found camera Checkout previous owners of camera Track stolen and reposted images So What Happened?
I entered the number manually and… Bingo!
It had been reported stolen in Spain two years ago. So I filed a report of a “Camera Found” and waited for a day or two.
Since I didn’t hear anything I contacted Matt, who runs the site.
He has now put me in touch with the original owner who lives in Italy and we are working out the details on how it will be returned!
All in all I will probably loose a bit of money since the seller probably wont pay up and/or used a fake name etc. But I will certainly gain a bit on my “Feel Good Account”.
And at the end of the day, I would love it if the same thing happened to me if anything ever got stolen.
A bit of a sunshine story imo
(now back to searching for a new Leica T, like its slogan says, "Easy to use, Hard to forget".)

I recently purchased the a6500 around Christmas time and as others have said on this thread the image quality coming out of this camera is to me is unreal. Granted, I've only had the Panasonic G7 before hand; I haven't had the experience of shooting with cinema bodies. But below are some still frames from a wedding I shot this past weekend. 

You know we are damn fixated on the camera end of the equation, but what if were twice as good at editing, grading, audio, 3 times as good or more?  I know that is my weakest Link.
I would think that would have more of an effect than our cameras in the end. Thoughts.

Despite starting this thread, I hope Panasonic sells a ton of the GH5's and all their other bodies.  You have to get behind any company that is giving you their all to COMPETE, along with being rock solid workhorses.  Never had any issues ever with Panasonic bodies.