meanwhile

By fiddling with the site I managed to see a larger version of the lily pad shot. It was horrible - way below a good phone camera. Things has sharp edges by lower contrast detail was covered in melted wax.

This comparison will be mute once Canon add the XF-AVC codec, which will likely be 10-bit. The idea of comparing the C200 to a hybrid DSLR is a bit silly. Where are the XLRs, Timecode, SDI outputs etc, on the GH5? I think this person put across the differences of working with a dedicated video camera vs a DSLR hybrid best. 
 

And, again for anyone finding this thread in the future, probably the sanest option if you do want manual focus while experimenting with video is something like this C-mount lens
These lenses are designed to cover a APSC sensor, so m43 is no problem. One of these, a vintage 50mm, and a use copy of one of the better wide angle converters will give the full frame equivalent of 35, 50 and 100mm for the less than the cost of a lens Turbo. More -
https://medium.com/@adam.zivner/review-of-zonlai-25mm-f-1-8-e4ccbac76a1
There also seem to be options  for using c-mount lens for smaller sensor sizes by cropping, including the Electronic Teleconverter function, even if that does sound a counter intuitive way of getting a wide angle shot.

I haven't used one of these, but if you're talking about side to side movement while walking, then a Fig Rig is excellent. And they're easy to improvise with a camera clamp.

No. I opened a profile years ago and never used it until now. And I don't have the hands on skills for lens modding. I wish I did!
I can sound relatively expert on a lot of technical subjects fast because I'm a good researcher and used to doing things like technical audits on business plans. So when got interested in stills about 18 months ago I realised at a certain point that dpreview type tests and mtfs were insufficient, wondered why film looked different digital, and spent a few hours doing research.
Other interesting things I realised:
- Sample variation of some lens designs with can be huge. Naturally marketing picks the best ones out to send to out on loan to reviewers... (The zooomier a lens and the faster, the bigger the scope for variation - even more so if the lens includes a sub 35mm FL on fullframe DSLRs, because then a lot of complexity gets added to work around the mirror box.)
- DSLR focus accuracy varies considerably and poorer focus costs resolution. These losses are eliminated from most tests. (Mirrorless cameras don't have this problem.)
The best site for interesting articles on camera tech is lensrentals.com, if anyone fancies a really good nerd-out. Some of their best articles -
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/lens-geneology-part-1/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/01/cooking-with-glass/
Re. coatings https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/12/reflections-on-reflections-the-most-important-part-of-your-lens/
 
 

A much better discussion of filter stack thickness than I'm capable  of
https://petapixel.com/2014/07/08/sensor-stack-thickness-part-iii-summary/

I have no idea at all why you think someone writing an article that technical doesn't know what a curve is just because he doesn't discuss them in an article where they are largely irrelevant to the point being made - which is that Bayer sensors, film and Foveon have different highlight behaviour, and the last two are more organic. Ditto white balance. 
..If everyone writing an article about anything stopped to point out every possible related point, no matter how obvious... Well, it might help some people, but it would be a drag for the rest of us.

The very respect Roger Cicala is going to start testing cine lenses as well as stills ones -
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/why-were-going-to-start-testing-cinema-lenses-and-why-we-havent-before/
 

I'm fairly sure that they're literally the same lens with a different name on. The sample variation due to lens history - bumps etc - is going to drown out any reasonable performance distances. The HFT and T* coating are impossible to tell apart - and often the Rollei branded versions were produced at Zeiss with Zeiss's coating -
http://www.dantestella.com/zeiss/coatings.html
 
Foot zooming doesn't work. Trust me; I'm a stills shooter. If you move forwards to make Mr Stallone occupy as much foreground with your 50mm as  he would have done with a 100mm, he now has a different relationship to the background. Read eg
https://petapixel.com/2017/04/20/zooming-feet-not-zooming-lens/
FLs are a fundamental stylising choice for this reason. Eg Daido Moriyama is a 28mm shooter and Bresson a 50mm; DM is punk rock and HCB is a chamber quartet. If I need to balance a camera out with a heavy lens, then it won't be the first time. But focal length is fundamental.

The same vintage lens price varies on whether the lens has an all-black finish or black and silver. So no.
 
They're really nice lenses but won't give me the FLs I want. The East German Pentacons are nice too, but there's the same problem. I need - well, want - at least a 28mm equivalent - and 24mm would be better. This might sound fussy, but that's stills people for you...This how I think of a wide:
A 28mm is for doing shots like this

..A 50mm with the same amount of subject would have had a tighter background without the strong diagonals and the subject wouldn't have had the distorted nose etc that cues a viewer that she is inside personal space. This shot is a Moriyama. Winogrand was another great 28mm shooter.
 

I almost asked if you could have download the files for the G85 instead of GX85. Panny don't make it easy...

Have you tried using a different card? Because really, the fw works for other people, and applying the update is simple -
- Get new card and format
- Charge battery until full
- Download from Panasonic's site only, check file is exactly correct size, put in root directory of card
- Unmount card or whatever your os likes
- Put card in switched off camera
- Switch on
- Press play
- Follow instructions
 

I'm fairly sure that they're literally the same lens with a different name on. The sample variation due to lens history - bumps etc - is going to drown out any reasonable performance distances. The HFT and T* coating are impossible to tell apart - and often the Rollei branded versions were produced at Zeiss with Zeiss's coating -
http://www.dantestella.com/zeiss/coatings.html
 
Foot zooming doesn't work. Trust me; I'm a stills shooter. If you move forwards to make Mr Stallone occupy as much foreground with your 50mm as  he would have done with a 100mm, he now has a different relationship to the background. Read eg
https://petapixel.com/2017/04/20/zooming-feet-not-zooming-lens/
FLs are a fundamental stylising choice for this reason. Eg Daido Moriyama is a 28mm shooter and Bresson a 50mm; DM is punk rock and HCB is a chamber quartet. If I need to balance a camera out with a heavy lens, then it won't be the first time. But focal length is fundamental.

It's impossible to argue (sanely) that Kurosawa isn't excellent. But it's interesting that he comes up so much more that, say, Kubrick or Godard. And also that while he is widely referenced I don't see any signs of people actually absorbing him as influence. But, as Crow T Robot said, I digress:
The point is that I wouldn't and didn't ask about blocking here because it's easy to find incredible books, articles and examples. The stuff I asked about is material I can't seem to get from books - how to work with very small consumer cameras like the GX80. Being told to look at a video about writing and blocking instead doesn't really help me with that.
An example of the sort of thing I'm wondering about is how to pull focus when shooting handheld or even whether I should. My guess after pulling over 500 shots is that it can work reasonably well with a focusing lever and something like a chest brace. But it would be nice to know instead of told to learn to focus by re-making Ran. 

Excellent discussion of exposure for video
http://www.leeminglutone.com/#usage
More on audio
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/record-indie-filmmaking-audio/

The author of that discussion certainly wants to be taken seriously. But, no, it's a joke and he's incompetent.
The main reason modern primes have more elements than older lenses is the switch from digital to film. He's too bloody ignorant to know this and too stupid to any research, but film accepts light from any angle whereas the thick filter - often 4mm deep - in front of a sensor means that it only sees light travelling parallel to the lens access - because the filter consists of long narrow tunnels like a lighting grid. This change in requirements adds a lot of extra elements, especially to fast lenses. If you don't have these elements then, with a digital sensor, contrast goes down, not up as Mr Stupid thinks. (This is why people who want to shoot vintage wide angles have the filters on A7's thinned, even though it reduces performance in other ways.)
It would be one thing the silly man actually addressed the above and disagreed - but he's too ignorant to even know the basics of subject he's ranting about. This is example of
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
..Which, yes, was discovered by the character from Archer. (True story: I look enough like Trotsky that people can't tell us apart except from the nose. And he's dead. And the friend I sat next to during my masters degree turned out to look just like Hitler - only no one noticed until he put a piece of black tape on his upper lip. Which won't make seem relevant unless you watch Archer, but there you go.)
 

I've been asked via PM regarding is it possible to use a pistol grip with the MOVO foldable rig so thought it better to share the answer here in case anyone else needs it.
The answer is yes, you can use one such as this cheapie from Amazon and screw it into the mounting plate either fore or aft of the camera. As the MOVO also has mounting points on all of its arms you could side mount it with any number of adapters if you'd prefer it on either side of the camera. 
Once its on you can then do the usual shaping stuff with the MOVO to use it as a shoulder mount or top handle as shown in the inset pic.
Handle I'm using is this one here https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Handheld-Stabilizer-Panasonic-Samsung/dp/B018LQEFL4/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1501604216&sr=1-1&keywords=Neewer+Camera+Handle+Pistol+Grip
 

The same vintage lens price varies on whether the lens has an all-black finish or black and silver. So no.
 
They're really nice lenses but won't give me the FLs I want. The East German Pentacons are nice too, but there's the same problem. I need - well, want - at least a 28mm equivalent - and 24mm would be better. This might sound fussy, but that's stills people for you...This how I think of a wide:
A 28mm is for doing shots like this

..A 50mm with the same amount of subject would have had a tighter background without the strong diagonals and the subject wouldn't have had the distorted nose etc that cues a viewer that she is inside personal space. This shot is a Moriyama. Winogrand was another great 28mm shooter.
 

Won't fool an expert unless you pretend the camera has broken down after a couple of hours....
Ok: name one of those analysts...

The FD is undoubtedly a nice lens. But I'm lazy. And who wouldn't want to buy a lens called an Ultron??? (That's the Rollei version, I think.)
Well, yes - a lens that old has to be cheap by now... NASA will probably pay me to take one off their hands.

No one cares about anything of the end result is good. But that doesn't help you when you are considering HOW to make something good. What does is looking at what techniques generally help with creating that result and mastering them...
So for -
- Practice focusing and focus pulls until I'm happy with them, shooting leaves in the woods
- See if I need to change my exposure techniques, ditto
- Learn sound
- Then re-make The Seven Samurai. Rather than learning how to pull focus by making the film. (On the subject of T7S re-makes, the best one imo isn't TM7 but "Samurai Seven" - an epic anime that was overshadowed by the above-mentioned Gurren Lagann.)

Voigtlander 58mm has similar contrast/sharpness from F2.8

@meanwhile
The 1.8 Ultrons have a different design and different coating. The Rollei Planars and Zeiss ones share the same design and equivalent coating. @Parker s advise, I would second, CY Zeiss 50mm 1.7.
What is your favorite 50mm when you do photography?
 
 
 

Already mentioned, just to add some info: cheap and (still) hidden gem - Voigtlander Color Ultron f1.8. (In fact, there is second "concave" version which is very pricey.)
It is full Zeiss Planar construction, different from CY f1.7. QBM mount is very easy to adapt or - I think even unikely - convert to EOS mount.
http://forum.mflenses.com/voigtlnder-color-ultron-50mm-f1-8-in-m42-singapore-t72279.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/rollei-voigtlander-color-ultron-1-8-50mm-on-canon-t3-t71100.html

This is, of course, completely gaga. Yes, you can synthesise more levels of detail. But they are a lie and no one wants them. More than that, no one has worked out how to synthesize computer graphics that are convincing on this level. The idea of a Canon 5Dvi actually generating this code is so nutty that you should be wearing an anti-squirrel hat for your own safety.
Two more things about ML and cameras -
1. ML algorithms generally take a long time to run. And the more complex the task and the better the required result, the more time they need - and generally this relationship is a steep geometrical curve. So even if this tech existed, which it doesn't, why the devil would you try to run it at a high frame rate in a portable battery powered device? It's like a man who fell off a bridge in Paris. In. Seine.
2. Camera sensors hate heat - because it equals noise. The best IQ in any reasonable size stills camera comes from the Sigma Foveons and part of the reason is they are designed as radiators and screen resolution etc are compromised to keep heat down. Running a complex ML algorithm at video frame rates would be an unprecedented processor load, meaning unprecedented amounts of heat from the CPU. So even if the tech existed, why would you do it??? Seinely - sorry, sanely - you wouldn't. You'd take nice raws and then compress using this tech on your PC.
..Honestly, "balloon juice" is being kind.