austinchimp

No easy answer to this really. In the pressurised, high speed run & gun situation I use the histogram or waveform, and zebras, and with experience you should get better at getting exposure relatively consistent. 
I also shoot with everything on manual, usually setting my desired aperture and shutter speed and then constantly riding a vari ND to keep exposure under control.
Shooting log also helps as you can adjust a lot of exposure issues in post and rescue many shots.
Largely though it's just experience and getting used to what your camera works best with, and knowing your controls so you can do it all fast and intuitively.

I own both the GH5 and GH2...the GH2 is, even today, a fantastic image producer...but it's not remotely in the league of the GH5....the GH5 is a professional tool and is probably used more as such, than by hobbyists....as for the Vimeo or YouTube lack of GH5 footage...our very own Jonpais has posted clips of the GH5 that are amazing in every way...if someone needs more "proof" of what the GH5 can do, probably not the camera for them...and lastly, I would venture that probably the vast amount of camera posts on YouTube and Vimeo are done by hobbyists, as they are free publishing media outlets...professionals have their work on a reel, and usually link it to someone they are interested in working with. (I could be dating myself badly here, as I don't even have a website) all the same...I never post publicly....interpret that as you wish....it matters little to me....as does the camera I use for that matter...I only care about the results I get in my work....period....again...I know this is off topic...I urge anyone in doubt of the GH5's capability to view Jon's work with it!

@PannySVHS I think think what you're noticing is more a change in the type of projects you're finding on Vimeo over anything which reflects the cameras themselves. Everything you mentioned in your original post is to do with behind the camera or in front of the camera, not the camera's actual capabilities.
The GH5 is obviously a vastly superior camera in virtually every aspect. However it has become more common to shoot and upload short, no budget, aimless camera tests / home movies these days than it was in the days of the GH2. I know because I do it myself.
I also think it's very hard to judge a camera based on what you find on Youtube or Vimeo. The projects where the camera is used most professionally are probably commercial or professional productions for brands which don't put 'GH5' in the tags. Again I know this from experience. None of the higher level professional work I do goes on my own channels, and the last thing big brands are concerned about is tagging the make of the camera it was shot with.
Speaking for myself, if you do this for a job, 5 days a week, what goes on your personal Vimeo channel tends to be a bit more slapdash and aimless because you're doing it to experiment and relax, rather than produce your best work.
Having said that, I was looking at some old GH2 footage the other day and was struck by how natural and beautiful the colour was straight out of the camera.

Been trying out this conversion for the past few of days. I've only had the GH5 for a few months but I really am enjoying the color response and the highlight rolloff of this profile. I used the LogC conversion LUT, LogC to Rec709 and some temperature adjustments on this one. I've got the original V-Log to LogC frame below. I have not had the pleasure of using an Alexa but your conversion gives the GH5 a better starting point for grading in my opinion. Great work!

Some quick test frames from home movie footage I got this week using V-Log. First impressions are that it's having a very nice effect. Very natural and the management of the light is very cinematic. I haven't used an Alexa much but have used an Ursa mini 4.6k and Canon C200 a lot, and this kind of reminds me of the Canon Wide DR profile. I just threw a few clips on a timeline and spent a minute or so adjusting each frame so this is pretty much ungraded, just with the daylight LUT.
I'm looking forward to editing something together. I recently got hold of a Digital Bolex so I'm into colour and skin tones, and this looks very promising.
Lens was a EF Tamron 24-70 f2.8 with Metabones speedbooster. I also used a Tiffen Vari ND.
 

*Starting today, I am offering the HLG/V-Log conversions for free. You can enter a donation if you'd like
Enjoy!
"Precision conversions to allow the interchangeability of Hybrid Log-Gamma and V-Log L, for the Panasonic GH5. There are 3 variations of each conversion to accommodate the interaction of white balance with color space: Daylight, Tungsten, and an averaged conversion (4300k)."
EmotiveColor.com
PDF Download
HLG Converted To V-Log L (Tungsten)

Well, back to all seriousness, I gotta really make efforts to reverse GAS into some GUD (Gear Unloading Detox) and simplify things, think that's a healthy move.
This year I'll be doing a lot of travelling and will be in e.g. North America, Asia and Africa quite a bit. I've been eager to get into analog photography for a while now and cameras like the Contax T2, Ricoh GR1v, Fujifilm Klasse W & S were on my radar, but in the end I settled for the convenience of digital (which has gotten cheaper over time, rather than these analogs that have skyrocketed), though I think the Ricoh GRII will get me about as close as it gets to that. APS-C single focal length photography basics goodness. Yummy.
Regarding video, 2018 is more of a bridging year before I'm going to attempt to do it on the side commercially in 2019. So, last chance to experiment and try as much as possible. My favourite part is shooting itself, but I probably need to pay more attention to effective storytelling and editing. Also kinda want to figure out the applications for HLG. No.1 thing is to go and have some fun with it.

Some quick test frames from home movie footage I got this week using V-Log. First impressions are that it's having a very nice effect. Very natural and the management of the light is very cinematic. I haven't used an Alexa much but have used an Ursa mini 4.6k and Canon C200 a lot, and this kind of reminds me of the Canon Wide DR profile. I just threw a few clips on a timeline and spent a minute or so adjusting each frame so this is pretty much ungraded, just with the daylight LUT.
I'm looking forward to editing something together. I recently got hold of a Digital Bolex so I'm into colour and skin tones, and this looks very promising.
Lens was a EF Tamron 24-70 f2.8 with Metabones speedbooster. I also used a Tiffen Vari ND.
 

A year ago, I was contemplating picking one up when it hit the 12.5k mark. I priced it out at time, and looked at what I would need to get it in motion (all that I shoot), and decided to hold off. That decision ended up setting in motion the conversion idea for a somewhat smaller camera ;). I will still likely get one eventually, as I am a nutty fan, but it won't really be practical for personal shooting for me, because of the weight (the motion tools and crew needed for them etc.). It would still be nice to have one however, and I spoke to Roman Alaivi a while back about it (someone who ended up getting one when it hit 12k). Here are his thoughts:
Hey man, yeah I did get a classic Alexa last December. I've loved it so far. Basically, in terms of functionality it is a beast and not quite as simple as the URSA logistically. It's big, uses lots of power and can be a bit of a pain in terms of getting up and running smoothly once you buy the camera.
Here's what I had to get off the bat to make it just as useful / practical as the URSA. 
- 6 * 155WH Anton Bauer batteries. Each battery giving me approximately 1hr 15m. 6 batteries was the minimum to run a normal shoot for me. $1600
-O'Connor 2060HD head used $6k. O'Connor sticks, $1500. I suppose you could skimp out here and get another head... but man... this thing is no joke lol. You need a serious head. There's older versions of the O'Connor you could probably use though
-4 * 64GB SxS media: $1k. This was the dumbest purchase, because I could have literally gotten a Gemini with an ARRI Raw licence for about that much, and multiple 512GB cards... so silly. Either way, look to spend about that much to make it useful media-wise
-Hot swap battery plate, to run 2 batteries $300
-Good telescoping rosette arms. With other cameras, I could care less, but with how big the Alexa is, I pretty much needed exactly the right length of arm to make handheld feel as natural as URSA or other cameras. I got the shape handles for $1k. Might sound like overkill, but other rosette handles just don't hold up with how much weight you're bouncing around. The solid Tilta handles I had eventually wore-down and the rosettes didn't even lock into place properly because of the bumps and jolts they'd get tossing the camera around sometimes.
There's a few more things for sure, but those were the main purchases.
In the end, once I had everything I needed, it wasn't bad at all. Takes more time to setup for shoots, but less time in post. Footage looks so good, and just the ARRI REC709 LUT looks like a movie every time lol. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't worth it just for the look and how consistent it is no matter what I shoot. I've been loving it so far.

Looks nice. I like what it's done to the highlights, and the skin looks great. How does it compare to how you'd graded it before?

@sage just bought your LUT set and going to test out on some existing anamorphic V Log footage that I have.
EDIT: I had time to test in one one shot. VLog to Alexa Log C to Kodak Elite Chrome 200
 
 
 

I honestly believe we'll see cameras like this on the market in the next 5-10 years, and by then everyone will not only take it for granted but still be moaning over perceived shortcomings, pixel peeping into imperceptible problems with the 6k 120fps Raw, and wishing for smaller/larger/more ergonomic/more feature packed/more minimalist form factors at lower prices.
And instead of 'everyone in the world' queuing up to buy it, it will still only be a relatively small amount of people on these forums who actually care that much.

Just bumping this topic to see if anyone has used it yet. I'm interested to see some examples. I haven't been shooting with my GH5 lately so have no need to buy it yet, but I'm curious to see how many others have taken the plunge.

Having used the C200 for several long run and gun days, I would not call it lightweight! The form factor is nice, but if you're used to DSLR cameras it's significantly heavier, with all the advantages and disadvantages that brings. For me personally, though I love the quality and look of a larger heavier camera, smaller lighter cameras have proven better with my way of working. For that reason I stopped using a Ursa 4.6k and moved to the GH5 as my main camera.
Still miss the Blackmagic image, but the GH5 can get surprisingly close after grading, and I don't miss the pain in my arms, back and wrists!
My dream camera is one the size and weight of the GH5 with the image of the Blackmagic Ursa Mini 4.6k. Here's hoping for Raw in the GH5s...

If the EVA1 sensor thing is true, or if the camera is significantly upgraded from the GH5 it will feel like a bit of a kick in the teeth after spending a significant amount on the GH5 recently.
I'm all for putting the best tech possible out there, but unlike Sony there was no indication Panasonic would release another model so soon after the GH5. I'm hoping for a firmware update but... Maybe it's time to stop visiting these forums and just be happy with what I've got..

This looks great and your demo footage is beautiful. I would be sending you my money right now but it's WAAAAAYYY too expensive for a lut.
I think many of us have been burned before with Luts promising to transform this, or fix this, or make our lives easier, and the truth is I've never found any of them to completely live up to their promise, so it's hard to splurge this much money. If it were 50% cheaper I would try it out and reward you for what has obviously been a lot of work, but this is just too much right now without any way to test it myself on any footage.
If there were more demonstrations on other people's footage in a variety of different circumstances then I might be persuaded.
Your results do look fantastic though.

Isnt too old anaolgy to sell camera for this generation. 
[Here's the thing: A builder needs drills and saws and hammers. A painter needs a canvas and paint brushes and paints and paint tools. A cameraman (usually) needs a camera. If it's a hobby for you, you use what you can afford. The expensive cameras on the market are not aimed at hobbyists for the exact reason that hobbyists cannot afford $10k for a camera body.]
Since internet and blogs like this made easy to understand who ripping your money more esily than other. An ameture becomes a pro in a day[may be somebody shuld write thread about pro]. 
To me Eva1 is a looser. lets see what they have next. 
I am sure magiclanthern will enable middle codec everybody disappointed, very soon.

I am sure you are sure of many things. You cited newsshooter completly in the falsest possible manner. I am sure that makes your recent comments even less convincing.

Thanks, I've been waiting for some tests like this. I can actually see quite a clear difference with some compression artifacts in the ipb.
Having recently gone back to some of my old BMPCC footage I'm still amazed by the fidelity and weight of those prores images compared to anything coming out of the GH5 regardless of data rate. I'm not sure what the difference is. Perhaps the GH5 internal processing gives it that slightly brittle feeling?

WOW! I did not know this! This is epic!!
PS: Your opinion is epic too...but not as much  

Hi, I'm Eddie. I designed the Bolex Log color specification and the image processing pipeline for Digital Bolex towards the end of its production run. Also wrote the plugin that lets people process CineForm Raw color in Davinci Resolve as if it were DNG. And I'm not saying this to get into a pissing contest. I'm saying this as someone who is on the manufacturer side of things and has to know the ins and outs of the product and how it's used with other tools.
Shoot 8-bit H.264 from a Canon C100 or any of their DSLRs for that matter, then compare it to ProRes recorded over HDMI to an external device. You'll often seen that the ProRes has more noise and fine details/texture. This is because H.264 smooths out the noise in camera and HDMI outputs uncompressed data. You're speaking as if the main reason detail is lost in 8-bit is that it's the log curve, when in reality, the main loss of detail has been heavy compression. I already agreed that using a log curve in 8-bit will redistribute code values so that more space is given to the mids and shadows, meaning less codes per stop when storing HDR data. We're not debating sensor data, otherwise we'd be talking analog stages, 16-bit, 14-bit, uncompressed. So, in this case, compression has everything to do with the image data.
If you apply a logarithmic gain at the analog stage (ignoring the electron multiplying case), noise would be much higher than if you applied the log curve after digitization. It's not pretty. Definitely not philosophical in any measure. And these log curves can't pull data that isn't there. It's well known that using a log curve will boost the appearance of recorded noise in any bit depth, color space, etc. I'm not arguing that log fixes noisy data. I'm arguing that recording log allows you to record data in a way that keeps more detail across the range and expose in such a way that allows you to better minimize the appearance of noise in post (ETTR). Trust me, I let out a heavy sigh any time I try to see someone compensating for low light scene or poor scene lighting by recording log.
I didn't say you said they don't. But you said professionals are lighting within 6-stop ranges. They have millions to pour into set design, lighting, and wardrobe. I was just pointing out the fact, that in spite of them lighting like that, they still shoot log or raw (which is later interpreted as log in the grading tool). Also, they're gonna be shooting 10-bit, 12-bit, and 16-bit more often than not, so they aren't worried about losing code words per stop, which takes away the main argument of using a standard profile.
I didn't say you did. But it isn't nonsensical. Canon raw has C-Log applied to it before being sent over SDI to external recorders for being saved as rmf. ARRI, BMD, CineForm, all write their raw formats with log as part of the specification. While it's not the Cineon-type log they use, it's log nonetheless.
But you can grade in a log color space. Hence Davinci Resolve Color Managed timeline and ACEScc/ACEScct. Whenever you grade on top of log image data, your working/"timeline" color space is log.
This is where we get out of the realm of objectivity. Because there are technical trade-offs for both sides, it's up to who's shooting as to which is preferable. There is no clearly defined technical mathematical winner in this case (which is one of the reasons I'm happy I don't have to deal with H.264 compressed, 8-bit recorded data anymore). And I'm not saying there is one that checks all the boxes in this case.
When I say "retain detail through compression" I'm talking about codec compression. Like I stated earlier, a standard profile combined with high levels of compression will reduce texture in the low mids and lows. It reduces flexibility and the overall naturalness of the image.
That is an issue of grading, not the source material. When I grade log material, I have no issue getting thick colors from it.
Again, log doesn't add noise. It just increases the appearance. Once the image is graded, the appearance of the noise will look similar to that of the standard profile, but the texture of the shadows will look more natural, especially in motion.
But you didn't grade to match which means the higher contrast and extra sharpness of the standard profile will have increased perceived detail of the aliasing and text. And in spite of that, we can see that the aliasing that you point out in the standard profile is present in the log image! When graded down to match, you'll get similar, if not exact sharpness from the log image. The difference between the two being flexibility. I took the log one you posted and graded it down more closely to what your standard profile looked like without the boost in saturation and you can see the apparent sharpness is similar and the noise isn't as much as you were making it out to be.
 

Looking at your setup I seriously doubt a GH5 would boost your creativity... In some cases it is true that a better/more ergonomic/more versatile camera could enable you to do things you can't do with your current gear, but having an a6500 and an FS5... Come on! Both cameras are light, small and very capable -with some shortcomings, like every camera-.
I use the FS7 and the FS5 for paid work and frankly, if I don't enjoy as much as using a stripped small cam it is because I am WORKING. Even if your job is your passion, there's a tiny bit of pressure when there is a client, pressure to not screw up, to not miss any shots, to go on schedule and even pressure to "get it right" -sometimes you shoot and edit exactly what was agreed and scripted and the client doesn't like the final film and wants to re-shoot, re-edit or start from scracth-. There's also the fact that you are many times not shooting what you really want but what serves the client's purpose.
No matter what camera you use, nothing will compare to the joy of shooting with your small cam on vacation or shooting an improvised goofy short with friends. You'll always find more joy when you can experiment with lighting, camera angles, lens choices -or lack of, using just one- having the luxury to get it wrong or "not perfect". All that "dedicated video cameras kill creativity vs mirrorless open up new worlds" is the enthusiast/purist/idealistic/childish filmmaker in all of us talking. We've all felt a little bit that way some time or another, but deep down we know it's not true. It's the kind of BS that crumbles down the moment you are faced with the reality of the industry, its tight deadlines, its constant need for quick technical problem-solving, for formats that meet the detailed requirements, for footage that is easily cut with the rushes someone else has shot who knows where, for files that are platform and NLE agnostic...
Your tools are just that, and fatigue may set in no matter which tools you use. Take some time off, maybe? Try different projects? I, too run a production company and know more often than not this is not possible. If you find there's some limitation that really affects your work -what clients expect of you- such as 200p @ 8K then sure, look for a new tool that'll serve you. The FS5+RAW is a real workhorse, uncomfortable at times for sure, but it's a professional tool that gets the job done. The a6500 not so much -was never intended to- nor the GH5 nor any other camera that is not meant for that use, even if we all use them sometimes with mostly acceptable results.
I've been in your place more than once and what I learnt was to stop, leave emotions aside for a moment and objectively evaluate if the change is really going to have a meaningful positive impact in my workflow or what I offer to the client. Will it make you faster, more efficient or allow you to offer something clients might want that you can't give them now? If I were you I know I'd end up missing having proper internal ND filters, proper audio connections (even though I have a soundman recording externally) and the rest of the "little things" a dedicated video/cinema camera provides... even if the GH5 is a true accomplished camera.
Sure, like the F5, F55, FS7, FS5... if you use a prosumer stills camera with hybrid/video features, even if the specs are impressive and may deliver stunning results, do not be surprised if those things happen. I seriously doubt the casual street photographer shooting RAW stills is ever going to experience those problems.
In a shooting there are things far more "impressive" than a rigged camera: large lights, grips running around, lots of stands with flags, cables, trucks, an old DP with his light meter... The rigged GH5 might be cumbersome and uncomfortable compared to an FS5, so the advantage of "going light and free" is lost. Even in a small shooting with few people, If my livelihood is at stake I'd always choose convenience/usefulness over looking cool... I'd probably choose a C300 or C100 over the GH5 provided the requirements of the project are covered with the C100 -even if it's not the best iq available-.

For those who love Canon colors I'd highly recommend using @hyalinejim V Log to ML Color LUT.
 

full time freelance editor here. I bounce around at a couple different companies whose clients are the major studios. for example, I cut this piece for the mummy.
the pay is great, frankly. i have been doing this sort of work for about ten years. I have also directed two features. the most recent was distributed internationally by paramount three years ago and we're still seeing good money from it. I don't spend more than I can afford on cameras and lenses, but am fortunate to be in a pretty good financial situation. No debt at all. My wife and I do not have kids. She also happens to be a film editor so she has an appreciation for my gear lust. But yeah, short version is that I work professionally editing and directing, and some of that income supports my personal collection of camera bodies, lenses, and support gear that i use more for fun, personal side projects that keep me sane.

How do you define creativity though?
Yes, if you film street photography style footage, a GH5 will offer more creative freedom than a fully rigged Arri.
If you are filming from a camera mount on a snowboard, then the GoPro will offer more creative freedom than a GH5
If you are filming fast moving skaters, then a DJI Osmo will offer more creative freedom than a GoPro
If you are filming the aurora, then a Sony a7s ii will offer more creative freedom than an DJI Osmo
If you are filming music video, a C200 will offer more creative freedom than an A7s ii
and on and on..... There is no one camera that offers more creativity for every type of filming.