ac6000cw

4k/UHD video = 8MP stills which I think is perfectly fine even on a large screen at normal viewing distance.
One of my favourite photos (which other people have also liked) is only a 2MP JPEG, taken in 2015 with a Pana G6 while simultaneously recording FHD video. It's the light, shade and the sweep of the glinting rails that makes it work, not the resolution:

 

4k/UHD video = 8MP stills which I think is perfectly fine even on a large screen at normal viewing distance.
One of my favourite photos (which other people have also liked) is only a 2MP JPEG, taken in 2015 with a Pana G6 while simultaneously recording FHD video. It's the light, shade and the sweep of the glinting rails that makes it work, not the resolution:

 

The GX8 (announced in July 2015) was AFAIK the first m43 camera with a 20Mp sensor. I almost bought one at the end of 2015 when Panasonic had a double-cashback promotion running, but didn't as there was no sensor-shift stabilization for video (lens OIS plus EIS for FHD, only lens OIS for 4k), so decided to wait for full video IBIS with dual-IS - eventually buying a G80 when it came out in autumn 2016.
That said, whenever I've played with a GX8 in camera stores, I've always liked it (it has a nice 'premium' feel) and thought about buying it used a few times - partly for its large vari-angle viewfinder.

We'll see what this lens is all about in a few days. The term "pancake" can represent many different ideas. I think the Panasonic 26mm is going to be a truly small, but it's MF and F8. Maybe it'll just come with the camera as I can't see how they could make into a real product.

Yes, but there were quite a lot of adverse review comments about the level of cropping it used, which probably had an adverse effect on sales (for a vlogging targeted camera needing a wide angle of view).
I'm sure the S9 will have at least EIS (which Panasonic do very well). If the new 18-40 zoom lens has OIS that might be enough in a dual-IS combination.

I think as a product, some sort of image stab is going to be important. The G100 didn't have it, but it was quite usable EIS. The conundrum is that it's such a small, light camera, it would be really hard to handhold, but if IBIS adds 200g and bulk to the product, it would make sense to go with EIS. Given the competition and Panasonic's strengths, I think it'll be included (and it'll be up to snuff).

IBIS has been mentioned on l-rumors.com - and personally (given that competition like the a7c ii, ZV-E1 and X100V1 has it) I think it might be a bit suicidal not to include it.

If you want a nice, free, GUI based tool, 'Shutter Encoder' - https://www.shutterencoder.com/ - uses FFMPEG underneath, supports cutting without re-encoding for some codecs (on keyframe boundaries) and is available for Windows, MacOS and Linux. If you want to re-compress the files to reduce the size, it supports ProRes and many others, including optional GPU hardware acceleration for H264/AVC and H265/HEVC.
But always check the new files work properly in your editor before you delete the originals...

(I don't have any connection with the tool other than being a satisfied user)

As Panasonic are traditionally in the 'high-value' (rather than 'high-price') area of the market, using the Sony 61MP sensor would probably have pushed the price too high.
But if the S9 sells well, an S9r would be the obvious spin-off from it.
The Sony FF 24MP sensor is almost in the 'bargain basement' area now. It's OK for stills, but it's slow - hence the poor rolling shutter and crop in 4k 50/60p.
Maybe an S1H ii might have a much faster FF stacked sensor? - it would be something significant to put it above the S5iix

I agree (as someone who has done all my editing for years on either gaming or workstation-class laptops). Generally, decent laptops in both of those categories should have cooling good enough for long-term high CPU and GPU loads, but you do need to choose carefully - and expect them to be noisy when they are working hard!
Also be careful when comparing desktop and laptop GPUs - they can have the same or very similar model numbers, but the laptop version might have different performance specs (and more aggressive thermal management) e.g. :
(info from Wikipedia) The desktop version of the nVidia Quadro RTX 4000 (100-125 watts Thermal Design Power):

...versus the mobile version (60-80 watts TDP):

Maybe the forum has been taken over by AI and it's become sentient and agreed with your comments so much it wanted everyone to read them several times!!

Lok just posted a video talking about the S5ii and talks about the new e-stabilisation feature, and it looks like it has completely eliminated the IBIS wobble on wide lenses?
He includes examples with him walking with a wide lens, so it looks like a legit test:
 

The situation with review content being affected by commercial interests is nothing new in the slightest...
Many years ago I was asked if I was interested in doing a product review for a now long-gone print magazine. I tried to be as fair as possible when I wrote it, but thought the product had some usability/compatibility issues that needing fixing. The version of the review printed in the magazine had some of my criticism watered-down, I assume partly because advertising revenue related to the product was important to the finances of the magazine.
I only did a couple of reviews for the magazine in the end, mostly because the amount they paid for them wasn't much in relation the work involved in testing a product properly (and I wasn't interested in doing quicker, more superficial reviews).

A 'walking about in a forest' comparison from Robert May of the S5iix stabilisation modes at 14mm (very wide angle) using the 14-28mm f4-5.6 lens(which doesn't have OIS):
Pretty impressive stabilisation performance with minimal warping artefacts.

The situation with review content being affected by commercial interests is nothing new in the slightest...
Many years ago I was asked if I was interested in doing a product review for a now long-gone print magazine. I tried to be as fair as possible when I wrote it, but thought the product had some usability/compatibility issues that needing fixing. The version of the review printed in the magazine had some of my criticism watered-down, I assume partly because advertising revenue related to the product was important to the finances of the magazine.
I only did a couple of reviews for the magazine in the end, mostly because the amount they paid for them wasn't much in relation the work involved in testing a product properly (and I wasn't interested in doing quicker, more superficial reviews).

If you just want footage with no commentary, markr041 who is a user here has a YouTube channel and he tends to try a pretty decent number of the cameras that come out.  They're usually decently shot and I don't think I've ever even seen one where he talked about the camera (or even showed his face).  😃

The majority of YT that I watch has nothing to do with cameras, and in general the people that have the most followers have the least fancy camera equipment.
I mean, there are probably more channels that have over 500K subscribers and are just shot with a smartphone than all the active camera YT channels combined.

One of the things I find hilarious about YouTube is that a lot of the big camera influencers talk about leveling up channels and increasing production value, etc.  A lot of the bigger names have between 50-200k subscribers and a lot of them had the advantage of being early to starting camera channels.  Newer, theoretically popular people like Cam Mackey have like 65k.
Meanwhile, a friend of mine decided to do something with his YouTube channel a couple of years ago after the news did a story about his having purchased the monorail for $1/car from our local zoo when they stopped running it and turning it into a private campsite on some land in Wisconsin.  He mostly repurposes junk that he finds at garage sales and thrift stores into things like push-pull carts on railroad tracks and satellite dishes coated in aluminum foil.  The cameras he uses are mostly potatoes - like 25-year old camcorders and Hero 3-type stuff.  He has a pretty decent natural grasp of editing and story, though, and he's a funny guy.  He also would freely admit that he neither knows a lot about cameras nor cares to know any more.  Last I checked, he was at about 187k subscribers (including me - I like watching his stuff).
So if the goal is just to grow a YouTube channel, the quality of the camera is probably the least important bit.  Making half of your video be slow motion slideshow garbage so that you can put "cinematic" in the title doesn't really get views if the rest of the content is garbage.
I buy too much gear for my own mediocre talent, but that's partly just because I want it and after a lot of years, I can almost always find something to trade in to make stuff more affordable.  I have no illusions that buying a Komodo-X will substantially improve anything I do, but I might do it anyway.  If I get it, I'll probably like it a lot for a while and then after a couple of years, I'll probably trade it in toward something else.
 
Anyway, another thing to remember with these YouTubers that are in the business of making day 1 review commercials for various channels - when they're showing "what this camera can do," go watch their older stuff with a camera from last year.  Most of the time, it looks almost exactly like whatever they're doing with the new camera because they're really not that different.  One of the most laughable things that people say on various camera forums or YT comments is "I can't wait for (creator name here) to get it so we can see what that camera can really do."  Wanna know what that camera will look at when your favorite creator gets it?  Go watch the review they did of the camera before it.  It'll look pretty much like that.

Of course this is true; but the main business in photography, as far as the consumer market (and businesses that target it) is concerned, is selling gear and not the art or teaching techniques for making that art.
 
The attitude in online forum discussions is that everything should be easy and automatic, and people are willing to pay significant money towards that end, but many people are not willing to accept that there is a skill component to photography. If skill is required to get results, the camera is considered flawed. People spend more time online complaining about (perceived) camera flaws and performance comparisons than learning the skills that they would need to do meaningful work. And the youtubers who talk about gear target this population who has been mislead to believe that if they shop for the next great thing, then they will become great artists. They get paid to promote gear, and have been misnamed "influencers" or so some such strange term when in reality it is what used to be called advertising. Somehow the social media "influencers" are supposedly more genuine and authentic than professional actors and models in advertising but this is really just an act.

Disclaimer:  I'm an old.  Also, this rant is completely contextual to two concurrent projects I'm doing.  I'm gonna blow some steam here.
So, been making a no-budget passion project documentary with my wife and have found myself grabbing my (2017) EM10iii more than half the time to capture our 24p footage.  We have a FUJI XT5 --as well as our (also long in the tooth) GH5 that specs wise does a lot better, but here we are running around with a device that is technically inferior.  The issue is that it's not technically inferior by much when you get right down to it.  For what we're doing, the divide between 8bit video and 10bit video isn't such a big deal.  We're on manual lenses, and, honestly, the image from the EM10iii+our lenses is dang good. 
Paid $300 for this camera.  Seems hard to imagine a cheap cam would be what's used over more advanced gear, but we are certainly doing so.
Funny thing is, I can't rely on the XT5 (and it's admittedly gorgeous colors) because it overheats(!), and while I like the GH5 results, I don't like using the camera as much as I like handling the Oly.  Perhaps it's a mix of things.  Size, ergos, what we DON'T need from the feature set, knowing what'll ultimately work for our particular production, and a weird little feature of the Oly has (2x punch in) that the GH5 does not.
Anyone else holding onto (and often using) old inferior gear because it's good enough and not really chasing new tech anymore? 
I'll testify without irony that we've achieved better footage with this little camera than another million dollar + doc film I'm working on which used an ARRI.  Why?  Because subjects in a doc don't really give a shit when it's a single unassuming shmo running around with a small modest camera like the EM10.  People DO give a shit when they're in front of a giant rigged out ARRI and a crew of 9 self-important shmos flitting around with their serious demeanors and a gaggle of mobile video-village gear in tow.  And people  in a doc behave correspondingly:  Not naturally.  They're performative.  I'm left editing a bunch of dry useless footage from the ARRI shoot.  Additionally not much actual quantity of footage because they were so damn immobile.  Lame.
That's a hill I'll die on regarding doc film making.  When filmmakers put their gear fetish above good content acquisition.  Sometimes that requires big sophisticated gear, sometimes not.  Gotta be honest with yourself about that.  Anyway...
Finally, the doc we're working on will be mastered in 1080.  If anyone can successfully convince me that's not good enough for a doc screener, I'll entertain the argument, but 1080 24p is fine to my eyes.
/rant.

It's possible to synthesize all sorts of microphone types/polar patterns, including things like perfectly co-incident stereo pair mics (which are impossible to physically build), from a B-format Ambisonics stream/recording -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Virtual_microphones - and also produce a binaural stream - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Decoding
I think that post-processing flexibility is the real strength of using a Soundfield microphone for ambient sound recording.

My guess is that the difference in actual user experience of a system receiving a 923 and one receiving 893 will be negligible.  Between the two, I'd choose the one where I get a better deal.

By the time you add the size and weight of a converter box, you should probably just get the Z Cam EVF or the Portkeys OEYE and save money.

After posting the previous post I went back and compared the looks a few times and realised I was a bit harsh on the ARRI LUT, considering that it was very flattering on my battered skin tone but basically didn't screw up the strong colours too much, whereas the film look is much stronger without being that much more flattering.
Inspired by the ARRI LUT, I created this custom grade from scratch.
SOOC (for reference):

New Custom Look:

ARRI LUT (for reference):

I'm actually really happy with that look - I went a bit further in evening out the skin tones and brightening them up a bit and it didn't seem to come at the expense of anything else.
I think I could easily build a look around this, and will experiment further.

It's possible to synthesize all sorts of microphone types/polar patterns, including things like perfectly co-incident stereo pair mics (which are impossible to physically build), from a B-format Ambisonics stream/recording -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Virtual_microphones - and also produce a binaural stream - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Decoding
I think that post-processing flexibility is the real strength of using a Soundfield microphone for ambient sound recording.