kidzrevil

Go native 
pros : lighter , autofocus ,ibis 5 axis 
 

I was skeptic about HD as well. Saw it first in autumn 2004 on a trade show with the then-new Sony FX-1. Worries were unsubstantiated since the images were seen on SD TVs then. I wasn't impressed.
The first time I saw UHD was on a trade show again. Some JVC camcorder, stitching four HD videos together. Horrible colors, terrible edge-sharpening. The best part was where they showed a fish tank that was supposed to look real. The audience was impressed. I said, no, the fish look dead. I have a more convincing screensaver ... 
Groundhog day. 

Yeah, but if someone is on a budget they can hack a gx85 to get cinelikeD 4k which is already at 100mbps plus stabalization that the gh4 didn't have. That's why the gx85 was so impressive (and the g85 is also a low price point with longer battery life than the gx85, fully articulating screen and a mic input. BUT why not just get an external recorder if you need a front facing screen and mic input. That way you get 422)

Give it a couple of years, yeah. That's reasonable. I won't try to shoot a wedding in HDR now or in summer. I do, however, have some more ambitious shorts in planning. The visual quality of which concerns me now. 
In short: I think so.
My iMac display is *not* HDR, but it has ~500 nits. LCD, means blacks are grey. I have it backlit with a 6500°K LED bar for perceived contrast. Can't stand to watch Netflix on my ~4 year old Samsung TV - anymore. In comparison, all images look muddy and faded. Once it is replaced by an HDR-TV, it's clear to me that I wouldn't want to invest any effort into producing rec_709 images any further. 
There are two sources that discuss HDR vs Resolution vs Brightness in detail: 
1. the Yedlin "Resolution Myths Debunked" video. The bottom line of which is, with true 1080p, we have passed a threshold. We won't be able to see individual pixels at reasonable viewing distances. What is more, since all images are scaled - always! - an upscaling on a device with bigger resolution will improve the perceived resolution dramatically. HD on a UHD display looks better than UHD on an HD display. Fact. 
Resolution is only good if you can't see (or rather feel) it's limits. So resolution must be "invisible". 
Resolution is often confused with perceived sharpness. Beyond the said threshold, contrast adds more sharpness, brilliance, clarity than more pixels. 
2. The lectures on rec_2020, which include 4k (UHDTV1), 8k (UHDTV2), HFR, WideColorGamut and HDR. This is complicated matter, but all engineers agree that an extended dynamic range contributes most of all factors to perceived image quality. 
As a side-note, regarding resolution: it's an indisputable *fact* that 4k @ standard frame rates is only HD for moving images. 4k demands bigger pictures (interchangeable with shorter viewing distances, as in retina display), and the motion blur then diminishes the spatial resolution. 50/60p for 4k, 120p for 8k. Like it or not. You can't be a pixel peeper and resolution fundamentalist and at the same time insist on cinematic 24p.
We have to define the word benefit here. At the present point, it may not be reasonable or economically advisable to buy the hardware. If these were generally accepted arguments, EOSHD would probably die.

Or you can wait for the real world to catch-up with the standards, saving yourself a shitload of cash. 4K hasn't even overtaken 1080 yet. And now HDR has made the non 10-bit 4K panels obsolete?
Early investing in hardware only benefits manufactures.

Oh I won't argue with any of your comments. If you can only have or afford one camera you are not going to buy a GH2. A G7 puts one to shame overall. These new cameras make every ones life easier, but I just think beautiful 1080p output is, well just beautiful. We just seem to be loosing that in these new cameras.

Got myself some new glass for Christmas. I do prefer native lenses but the Sigma Speedbooster combo works really well! Screengrabs from GH5 + Speedbooxter XL + Sigma 35/1.4 + Black Pro Mist 1/4. 
Edit. Oh yeah, thanks to @jase and @kidzrevil for introducing me to Black Pro Mist, and other, filters.

@webrunner5 honestly, having grown up shooting Super 8 and VHS, I am blown away by what any of these cameras are capable of. Hell, a t2i and a GH1 are insanely better than the mini DV I used for my first short and that was monumentally better than the Hi-8 camera I had before that. We’re really lucky. 

I would say Sony Has to do it now between the GH5 and the GH5s. They Can't come out with 8bit anymore ,and they need to up the FPS just like he said. Sony's tit is in a ringer if this new A7s mk III doesn't have all that, not sure about the Anamorphic, but they had better pick up the pace because Panny has pushed them hard this week.
You know and I know the A7s will be bumping on 4 grand. It Has to be good, I say Way better than the A7r mk III. Now that the GH5s proves is doesn't Have to be FF to be good in low light the pressure is on. The FF myth has lost a Lot of it's edge this week. You don't Have to buy a Sony now. And m4/3 having I argue better DoF, by that I mean more, and damn near as good low light, why do you Need a FF Sony now, and pay more money. I argue even Panny Color Science now is as good or even better than Sony.
This new GH5s is a Game Changer that is for sure. Canon and Nikon trying to bring out a FF mirrorless probably pooped their pants when the heard abut it on the video side. They will sell them to Photographers but for video, hmm good luck.

Well this is not going to put Canon and Sony out of business, but this camera makes m4/3 nearly as good as FF and in some areas maybe even better. That alone is huge. A small camera with small lenses that cost less than the big boys on the same playing field. That is revolutionary in a sense. The GH5 didn't make that kind of impact, but I think this GH5s will.

Yes, it is a pity but it is what it is... Seems we can't have everything in the same package. Native dual ISO oblige. Nothing we can't do about it.

So no IBIS? That's a killer. 
Panasonic, you giveth and then you taketh away. Why?
 

Olympus 17.5mm f/1.2  These darn sweetspot range lenses.
* that would've been the Voigt, the Olympus is just 17 (where they have the f/1.8 as well)

Yeah, even with the old ancient Panasonic GH1 sensor and "slow" f2.8 primes, you can easily expose well with that so long as you work with it (not against!). 

I'd probably throw in just one 35mm f1.7 C mount lens (which are CHEAP! Was one of my first lenses for my GH1) into that lens kit, just to help out in a tricky spot when you really need that extra stop or more of light. 
 

Important point to remember is the GH2 took a lot more time to light with, than say an Arri Alexa does. 

Thus the Arri Alexa "saves money"!

(however I half wonder... if taking that extra time which the GH2 needed, is what helped make the image "better"? Maybe that is what we should all just do instead, take the time to slow down and really think about what we're shooting)
 
Yes. Like sound! ;-)
(ok ok, and lighting! And make up! Oh and I guess the actors and story matter too :-P )

Yeah, I'm attracted to its simplicity of operating, but I have to agree the actual performance wasn't all that great. But then again, Olympus cams now include a video feature called 'Old film effect' to dirty up your footage, because it's the flaws that ultimately gives it some character. Unfortunately for Olympus, that's a thing you can't really go and fake. Part of flaws and personality is that it's authentic. Maybe that's the thing about GH2 footage. Sort how CCD gives you its own vibe as well. Bit of a roughed up nose from fighting VS cosmetic rhinoplasty (intent as well)... or aged wine versus grapejuice.

GH2 has poor dyn range, much noise, ugly greenish color science, aliasing and unreliable hacks. The only good thing is the wider sensor. It was very good in 2012 but not today.

I agree with you. But I feel like people have been saying that for so long. "after the *insert new spec* honeymoon period" 
But people will always want more.
And nothing wrong with improving tech, but dimished returns absolutely kicked in around the GH2. The GH2, compared to, say, the DVX100.... is a MUCH bigger improvement than the Alexa is compared to the GH2. Or anything compared to anything from this point going forward. 

@kidzrevil well said!
Unfortunately, consumers are impressed and motivated by bigger specs. For instance, 10bit video... although great for a lot of users who want to bend and shape their color in post, for most users, 10bit video is overkill and the benefits are minimalistic at best.
To be clear, the footage I’ve seen from members of this forum looks great but Panny is right, if you scour YouTube and Vimeo, the overwhelming majority of footage shot in 4K 10bit, should be more visually compelling. And the majority of those folks’ videos would look just as good if they shot it in 8bit.
Hell, I’ve asked almost a dozen times on the various GH5 forums about the 10bit 200mbps all-i 1080 up to 60p and all I get are crickets. To me that is the most interesting spec on the GH5.
Actually, I just found some casual 1080p footage from the GH4 that is as good as a lot of the casual GH5 videos floating around...
Now I’m sure that guy would make great GH5 videos as well, because obviously the GH5 is an amazing camera, but I can’t wait until more of it starts popping up.
For now, I’ll continue to check out old videos from forgotten cameras.

The GH2 holds up incredibly well considering it was released, what, 8 years ago now? I shoot with the GH2 and GH4 all the time. I pretty much prefer the GH4 100% of the time, but the difference  isn't massive. I can't imagine that the GH5 isn't better in every way but I guess the question is, who cares?
I know it's a tired old argument at this point, but talent and creative choices matter way, way more than gear. Most of the content out there, the cameras used are overkill and a GH2 would service them just find.
Take a professional hollywood level set, turn on a GH2 and I think people would be utterly shocked with the result. Because ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF is what actually matters. 
 

And the approach to the whole "being a filmmaker" has changed since the GH2, not for all but for a lot of people. It feels like the majority of people who bought the GH2 with video in mind spent more time learning about the image and the tools to grade it than the majority of GH5 buyers do today. As a result Youtube is filled with GH5 stuff that looks meh.
Lets say you're 14 year old. You want to become a star like them other big Youtubers. But your concentration span is about as long as it takes for a Tesla to reach 60mph. What would you rather watch? "Learn the basics of cinematography - 10 parts, 1 hour each" or "INSTANT FILM LOOK IN 1 MINUTE, AMAZING RESULTS, EASY PEASY, JUST BUY THESE LUTS"
Nothing wrong in using LUTs, or auto features of a camera. But things have changed, just saying.

I must play my tiresome part here   Of course a lot of GH2 footage, from years ago, looks better.  It's before the mass over-use of V-LOG gamma profiles that kill color tonality.  That said, the GH5 4K in a standard, or very gentle LOG gamma, is a sweet image indeed!

Obviously, the GH2 has a little bit of a head start but yes, there seems to be a different level of filmmaking that occurred 4-5 years ago compared to today.
I think it’s a combination of beliefs and methods that forced people to be creative with what they had, the limitations created aesthetic opportunities, but these limitations also kept the membership much smaller...
Now with the advancements, a lot more people have decided to give it a try. On eBay alone I have seen about 6 GH5s up for sale in the past month where the seller said they bought it because they decided they wanted to make music videos or short films but have since moved on to other interests.
When the tech becomes more important than the content, there will be an influx of mediocrity. 
With that being said, I have seen a ton of nice GH5 work, but I’ve also seen a ton of nice t2i work and with all of the tech and visual enhancements of new cameras, I cannot say that the GH5 videos are better than the t2i or the GH1 videos I’ve seen.
Hell, look at Kendy Ty... his films have gotten worse since he moved on from the t2i. Other’s films have gotten better.
Interesting post.

I haven't tested the G85 but have tested the GX85. IBIS is the killer feature the two cameras share, but the GH4 still has a couple features that make it a good choice, depending on what you're planning to shoot.
Advantages of the GH4:
- 10-bit signal via HDMI at 4k, if you plan to use an external recorder this is still a killer feature. The GH4 is the only camera < $7k that offers this.
- VLog - if you plan to shoot cine-style or for color correction, this gives you more dynamic range and grading options
- slow motion - GH4 offers up to 96fps in 1080 setting
Really it comes down to how much or whether you plan on shooting handheld. If you're downconverting everything to 1080, then technically you can get a 10-bit image out of the G85, too. With a shoulder rig or something similar you should be able to get great handheld shots without stabilized lenses, you're just committing to carrying around more gear.

@kidzrevil how do you do this highlight glow?  looks so damn cool

Well, if you'd have read what it said 'w/ tiffen pearlescent filter', you'd know.
https://tiffen.com/diffusion/
I think filters like these (and e.g. Smoque 1 or Ultra Contrast (low) 1 & 3) are underrated, more people should give that kinda thing a go.