PannySVHS

That would make it perfect for my 10mm Cmount, not so perfect in regards of noise in 4K, compared to the GX85. The GX85 hack from @BTM_Pix allowed a forum member to get 200mbps HD running on the GX9. The stock HD is supposed to be very good in regards to resolution looking at the dpreview comparison tool. I am tempted to check this camera out sometime. I still love and use my GX85 btw. The 8bit 4K is indeed amazingly good for what it is and grades better than it should allowed to do in regards of spec sheet numbers. Nice results you are achieving with yours. @kye

I should have some soon @kye @PannySVHS
I say ‘soon’ as in shooting, but as to getting around to being able to even look at it…
Currently already in a 6 week log jam (see what I did there?) which gets longer week by week 🤪

Anybody checked out the "M-LITE"? A 3D printed modification of the EOS-M:
  
oh snap....

no 12 bit codec (whether it's PR444 or raw) makes it kind of DOA for me. that tended to be kinefinity's main selling point imo. conceptually its cool, but I just got a BMCC6K FF for 1500 euros second hand as a B-CAM. same sensor, same open gate capability, gives me an option to use an EVF as well, and it lets me do more in the grade.

OK, I have a black one inbound and should be landing tomorrow or Thursday…
I tried to get the LTD version but has to come from PannyBoy direct and they have zero stock, so black it is.
My S9 is still not fixed and I have missed it on the first 3 jobs of the year and with 5 more imminent, can’t wait any longer.
On the off chance my fixed S9 does turn up prior to these next 5 jobs I am away for, I’ll use both as a bit of a test but regardless, probably have a place more now for the L10 until an S9II comes along.
My experience of not having a mech shutter has not been the greatest and the role either of these units is destined for is more photo, so…

Thank you. I'm glad people are liking it. It was a lot of work and took two years to make. Most of the time by myself, out in the city with a tripod and camera. I met a lot of people doing it since the camera looks unusual. (It's common in Vancouver to see someone filming as it's a big film production town and has six film schools but people out shooting usually have more modern squarish looking cameras.) The themes and aesthetic came out of the photography I had been doing for several years already. I had been framing buildings to make geometric shapes. This was basically adding motion to that series. The music was from a friend who had I got to know when he acted in a short I did a few years earlier.  https://testcardmusic.bandcamp.com  It hasn't had a festival screen it yet but it did get an award in Sevilla, Spain. https://www.instagram.com/seviff.spain/p/DUTcVcGDLq7/?img_index=16
 

Wonderful!  Great eye and great images.  Definitely in the direction of Koyaanisqatsi etc, not only with the images themselves but the shifts in theme too.
Everyone should do themselves a favour and watch it!

The trailer is gorgeous.  Great job!

I use it both for my own films as well as I get hired to do music videos and events. I just finished a feature length experimental film shot entirely with it called Shapes, Colours, Patterns. (There's a trailer for it on my Tumblr. https://clarknikolai.tumblr.com ) I'm very happy with it, and of course the image from that camera is gorgeous. Something I've discovered with the Digital Bolex's footage, is that it looks the best projected rather than shown on an LCD screen.
I'm now working on a new project. It's a narrative, collectively written, performed and crewed by myself and three other artists. It's set in the present day in east Vancouver where three artists are working on their art projects. The characters are based on the people involved and their real lives (but fictionalized so we have more freedom.) We're using French New Wave and Availablism methods. Quick half-day  shoots. It's self funded, using what we have around us, the equipment we already own, locations we already have, etc. (I think so far all we've spent on it was some coffees.) I plan to enter it in to film festivals when it's done.
Here's a picture with the camera mounted backwards on the shoulder rig. This is so the camera operator can walk forward while the talent is behind them and they don't need a spotter. It's tricky to learn how to move but it's going okay. It works fine with a wide lens but not easy when zoomed in (as you'd expect.) We have to flip the image in the monitor or it's disorienting.

Here's a pic from a shoot I did last December.  I don't know the brand of the shoulder rig (as I got it used on Craigslist), the EVF is the (sadly discontinued) Kinotehnik LCDVFE. The camera  attaches to the rig with a Niceyrig quick-release plate (that has feet). The lens is a vintage Angenieux 17-68mm zoom with a screw on wide angle adapter, on top is a Niceyrig top handle holding an Audio-Technica stereo mic and a monitor mount. A bit hard to see is an attachment that goes below the rails between the shoulder pad and the grips for two wireless mic receivers.

In a sense it's much better than people give it credit for.
In terms of bit depth, what matters is how close (or not) the bits are to each other in terms of what hues / luma they describe.  We all know that 8-bit LOG is worse than 10-bit LOG.
In general, the below are roughly equivalent:
- 8-bit 709 == 10-bit LOG == 12-bit Linear
- 10-bit 709 == 12-bit LOG == 14-bit Linear
and the killer...
- 6-bit 709 == 8-bit LOG == 10-bit Linear
The challenge with 8-bit 709 is that the 709 from consumer cameras is essentially a creative picture profile, and so when you try to grade it there will be all sorts of tints or knees and elbows in the gamma etc.  If you try and convert from 709 back to some sort of LOG space for grading it makes the image much more flexible, as I outlined in my 8-bit REC709 is more flexible in post than you think thread, which showed that with some care you can turn this:

into this:

However, this is a "naked" transform without any look applied, so once you add in a transform with some flavour (like the 2383 LUT) then you can get an even more consistent output, turning this:

into this:

@Framed_By_Dan the above thread is worth checking out as it has a lot more detail, but the crux of it is to make sure you're using the right colour spaces etc, which FilmConvert should be capable of doing I would imagine..  Adding a film look will help obscure any shot-to-shot differences, and would probably give a decent set of tools for making small changes that are normally needed between shots when working with footage not shot on a closed soundstage.
I think the reason people are so dismissive on 8-bit 709 is because when it was out, the colour grading tools people had access to were primitive and the colour grading knowledge was minimal, however when 10-bit LOG came in everyone needed to convert and people with specialist knowledge built LUTs that looked really good, and then after that the tools got a lot better and people started learning how to grade.  I think had those tools and knowledge been around when 8-bit was the norm then people would have gotten a lot more out of it.  
The examples above show absolutely unforgivable exposure and WB errors and the results are good enough to be amateur-level.  Had these been the variations that someone even semi-competent would have in their footage, the results are likely to be basically flawless.
Indeed you should!!! 😆😆😆
Seriously, everyone has their own standards and looks for different things, so me saying it's good enough won't carry any weight for you using it on your projects (and it shouldn't) because we shoot differently.  
The sensor is 4592px wide, which with its 10% crop in UHD, means the normal mode is reading 4174px across (which seems an odd number actually).  If we assume the 2x is half that width (and not half the full sensor) then that gives us 2087px wide for the 2x crop.  I always shoot 4K so I get the 100Mbps bitrate, but edit on a 1080p timeline, so any artefacts will probably be obscured in post for me.  Depending on what you're shooting, how sharp your lenses are, and your timeline resolution you may get quite different results I'd imagine.
I've got a few S16 c-mount lenses and some have wider image circles than others, with my Risespray 35mm F1.6 c-mount even covering the full MFT sensor on my GH7!  Definitely worth testing and they can add some great character to the image without taking up a lot of space and making the rig really big (unlike using adapters and vintage S35 or FF glass).
Also, definitely recommend using FilmConvert for this, as not only is it likely to be a more accurate film emulation (it's film emulation, whereas the Film Look Creator is just that, a Look Creator that creates Film LOOKS), but also it should have settings for input and output colour spaces, so if you set these correctly then you should be able to adjust exposure and WB in a pretty neutral way.
I've been using the Standard colour profile, with Contrast / Sharpness / NR all turned down to -5, and Saturation left at zero.  If you're using different profiles then I suggest shooting some test shots in both Standard and your normal profile, then pulling them into FilmConvert and playing around and seeing which you prefer.  All the profiles on the GX85 do quite significant things to the colour, rotating hues, lightening and darkening different hues, changing the saturation of different hues, etc, so there is no neutral profile and it's just a matter of taste.
If you get some good results I'd be keen to see them so please feel free to share them!

This is quite misleading as mirrorless cameras can be set up to do a similar thing where the image is tone-mapped and written to a rec 709 video, usable immediately. The use of a log format and pretending that it is meant for direct viewing and comparing that to a highly processed video from a different camera is a bit disingenuous when cameras have menus with processing settings that allow the user to get a video without editing, with less AI for sure, but with good algorithms that do a roughlysimilar thing more predictably and with higher quality. I am not familiar with how Canon or Sony cameras do things but on Nikon I often use ADL which is their tone-mapping algorithm and it allows me to shoot high contrast, suboptimally lit scenes and get good results without editing. Log video is specifically a storage format and not meant for immediate viewing, which you of course know.
 
Extremely edited night time footage where subjects have been dug out from the shadows will never look very good, and using appropriate lighting and/or making the video in conditions where the existing lighting is half decent is better than relying on extreme AI processing.
 
This is probably one of the reasons why compact cameras are enjoying a resurgence: people are sick and tired of the sickly-looking overprocessed results from smartphones, and even a compact camera that has a small sensor but does not overprocess the image is preferred.

It seems like Panny is asking if we want a Lumix L2000- an L10 with a mount, full HDMI, IBIS and a headphone jack, for 1199 and a Lumix L1000, an L2000 with GH5 sensor, for 899. I'd say two times Yes, please! Keep em coming! I would go for the L1000.
The names are too cool, so I am looking forward to my L1000. Heck, why not, the L2000 will be it for me.

The GX85 with the 14mm is such a nice and pretty combo. Best bang for the buck for wide angle rangefinder style photography. I still got my GM5 but I'm thinking about selling it as its cuteness factor wears off quickly and the GX is just so much better in every regard.
I would have loved a Leica branded version with rock solid build and perfect button feedback and layout. I think this little Lumix is still well build  and to me it is a classic indeed. It's my favourite small camera in regards of small form factor, great image and bang for the buck.
If it had Pannys great 10bit codec and HLG I would have called it a digital S16 camera. I do call it a personal cinema verité camera nontheless.
Anyway, awesome thread and interested to see your findings, kye! I've been using my two GX85 cameras for photography over the last couple of months, with a 14, 28 and 50, even a 75mm in use. Different 50s btw, C-mounts from Schneider and Zeiss. That Zeiss is astonishing, the Xenon painterly with its uneven focal plane and it other attributes. Would love to put em to usage for video. I guess this thread is a good starter for some GX85 motion picture love!:)
@kye I have not experimented with the 2x digital crop. Is it without artefacts? That would make it a usuable 2/3" camera, though with one bayer sensor instead of three sensor blocks of course. Kind of like an LX10, which in 4K has about 2/3" sensor size. Could the 2x digital crop be downsampled from a 2.3K image? I could test it myself, couldn't I? Shouldn't I?:)
@Clark Nikolai  I would love to see a picture of your shoulder mounted D16. Awesome! Do you use it for personal occasions or for projects and what kind of projects?
Cheers and thanks for this fun thread!
 

Been using the GH6 with the cheap  7artisans 24mm 1.4. I really like the lens, are there any other 7artisans hidden gems?

It seems to be the case. Pretty amazing what Nikon has accomplished in the past few years.
That is a pretty cool feature, even though my mind cannot grasp how the Techart is accomplishing it. I had a quick look on BH and they only seem to have an EF to Z and a Leica M to Z... do they make an F to Z? The M mount one is kinda interesting because the more I get into shooting film, the more I have become interested in an M6 or earlier model... again completely perverse for my needs considering I usually shoot with an FE or the random Pentax/Canon/Minolta camera, but there's just something unique with a rangefinder.
Speaking of the FE... the FE/FM variants are damn near perfect cameras for stills for the type of stuff I shoot so as I started researching Z mount cameras, I almost forgot about the ZF and I instantly got a little excited about it... even though it lacks a lot of the video requirements I want for a hybrid... but so does the ZR... anyway after a quick search I found this...

Then I searched for a size comparison of the ZF vs. the DF and other than the grip, they were basically the same size... I thought mirrorless was supposed to give us smaller, lighter bodies. I mean my GH6 is only a little smaller than my 5D3...
What a joke in some ways...
Rant over.
The Z8 would be amazing, but I don't know if I could do it. I think I'd rather have a ZR/ZF combo or just a Z6iii. Maybe if I could figure out a way to make some money from this stuff, a Z8 could be in my future... but then that would open a whole new set of possibilities... an R6iii/C50 or C70 combo...
And this is the problem I have been dealing with since I started this hobby. No camera meets all my needs (wants) but it's obscene for me to really have more than one camera. 
Another off topic rant... I've been seeing social media posts from the filmmaker Pete Ohs... I posted about him a long time ago because he made a film a year with a 5D Mark iii with ML Raw and his films were screened at SXSW and Sundance and they all got some type of distribution deal... well he's still making at least a film a year... his films are still being screened at SXSW and Sundance and he still gets distribution deals and he still makes his films using his 5D Mark iii with ML Raw and when asked, his reason is... "that's the camera I own." I immediately feel like an a complete asshole for chasing these other cameras. Of course, he's a tripod guy with very static shots that he shoots in basically one location (or very few) whereas I am trying to shoot more run and gun and stealing locations whenever possible., so I've realized how important IBIS is to my style of shooting and AF on some level... but not as important...
END RANT.
Anyway, I'm still in my early phase of thinking this through. I guess if I was smart, I'd dust off my tripod and shoot with my 5D or FP... or learn how to grade Log footage and use the GH6... but I really want 32 bit float audio and R3D/ProRes files... or nRaw/ProRes files... and IBIS in FF with some halfway decent AF... is that too much to ask?
first world problems...
Do it!!! You're a Nikon guy at heart it seems and you've been taking about it for a while... how nice would it be to have your "forever camera?" 

Being a Canon fan over the years, obviously I drooled over the R5 since it was released, especially after the overheating got sorted out (thanks to the fine folks on eosHD) but it was waaaay over the reality of my life. Since my interest was once removed, I'm a little unsure of the specs but believe that the 4K raw is cropped, not downsampled, right? 8K is complete overkill for what I do... in some ways as I started thinking about this, I've gone back and forth that the 1080p raw on my 5D3 is probably plenty good enough for the short films I don't finish (HA) so 8K is just perverse for me.
Unless I misunderstood your first sentence here... I believe the Nikon ZR does have IBIS? My real concern with the ZR is the 4K R3D crop in 4K. I'm sure I can live with S35 crop for video or maybe the 6K is soooo good that I will get over my analogesque snobbery. But the Komodo suggestion is tempting... another camera I have drooled over.
Z8 is also a dream camera... basically any camera with internal raw and IBIS is a dream camera for me, so the Z6iii fits into that equation as well.
Shit... just checked BH... the Z6iii is on sale brand new for $1999...
Hmm... that complicates things a little.
Not interested in BM products.
Thanks for all of the suggestions, a lot to think about.

For sub-$2,500, a used EOS R5 ticks a lot of your boxes, I think.  Afraid of overheating and want longer takes?  R5C is right at the top of your price range, but would be doable.  
If you're willing to compromise on IBIS for the Nikon ZR and if you're willing to bypass stills, a used OG Komodo is just in the $2,500 price range.  If you already have some stuff around for rigging up a cinema camera, you'd be able to use it pretty cheaply after that.  If not, you'd probably be in a few hundred bucks more and out f your price range.  The Komodo does have a built-in gyro, though, so it can be stabilized.  Otherwise, the ZR seems to be a fantastic choice.
A used Nikon Z8 would be just out of your price range, but would also be a really solid choice.  A used Z6 III would do you really well too.  Price is about the same as a brand new ZR.
lensrentals.com has a used BMCC 6K for under $2,500 as well.  It's a sensor from 2018, but you can get good results and nowadays, it has surprisingly good autofocus.  No IBIS, though.
 

@mercer Canon just released the R6V, which is somewhere between the R6III and C50.  Another option to consider...

I like film and retro filmic looks, but shooting Super-16 (or even Super-8) is still an expensive PITA.
After some testing of my equipment, I've realised that my GX85 has image quality equalling or surpassing a Super-16 film camera (with some categories surpassing a Super-35 film camera) so in my pursuit of a pocketable, portable, fun, simple, and fast setup that looks like film, this project is born.
The criteria is to work out how to get great images from the tiny setup that are enough like film that most people would believe it if you said it was shot on film.  My approach is simply to compare the two and find the biggest differences and then work on bringing them closer together, 80-20 rule and all that.
The first point of comparison is already known, the crop factor is similar (2.2x vs 2.88x) so making sure I don't go too hard into shallow DOF then this should be comparable.
Second consideration is camera movement, shake, and how they'll be used.  S16 film cameras can be hand-held, but they've got some weight so are relatively steady in use.  8mm cameras were designed to be hand-held and are much lighter, so will move more.  The GX85 is far smaller than either, but has IBIS (and OIS with some lenses) so that should make it feel larger, but I'll have to watch out for parallax, which will give away the cameras lack of heft.
Third is the DR.  Film has a huge DR and I wasn't sure how this would go - harsh clipping of highlights and blacks will be a dead giveaway.  Without knowing anything about its rec709 profiles, I shot an exposure test where I took shots one stop apart.  Film negatives have a lot of DR, but print film has far less, with stocks like Kodak 2383 only having about 5-6 stops in the linear range of their exposure (between about 10% luma and 90% luma, before the rolloffs kick in).  Bringing in my test shots and matching the contrast within my standard colour pipeline (based around the Film Look Creator tool in Resolve) I realised the GX85 has enough DR to push its highlights well up into the highlight rolloff curve of the FLC, and same with the shadows, so this is fine too.  DR, check!
Fourth is resolution and texture.  The images should be soft and noisy, but how much?  After reviewing a number of sources, I realise that there are all kinds of factors, such as the speed of the negative, how it was exposed (0...  or -1 and pushed in post, etc), but often the biggest factor in softness was the lenses used, and the biggest factor on the grain is the processing that the streaming service does when you upload it!  In this sense, I have a lot of freedom in these aspects, but I'll have to do further tests on uploading to YT.  I have seen videos that have really nice grain in 4K, so I know it can be done, but my previous tests showed the YT compression really changes things, so I'll have to do more tests.
Then we're into testing with real images and just seeing what we see.
My first test was some random shots in the garden, just to have a starting position.




The feedback I got (including one friend who practically lives to talk about film!) was that it looked good but needed more saturation.  My thoughts were that I exposed too high (I'd forgotten that the LCD is deceiving and the GX85 has a lot of shadow info) and as such the highlights in the first image were clipped in the file and still show in the graded image.
After this test I happened to watch a YouTuber go through their grading process and they said they exposed by putting the image in the middle of the histogram, which made sense to me and I realised this is what I should do with the GX85.
Second test was just a few images while out and about.  It's the GX85 and 14mm F2.5 pancake lens.  I'd previously forgotten this lens is both a 31mm and also a 62mm (with the 2x zoom) and so is much more flexible than I was remembering, so I made sure to include some 2x shots to see how useful that was with this level of image degradation.  I also decided to push the images to get more of the kind of look I'm chasing.





The 2x seems completely fine too, having quality far more than this level of softening will show.




I also re-graded them in B&W, pushing the contrast much further.  I may even want to go harder on these.





Much more work to do, but I'm really liking the process so far.
In these days of digital perfection, the attraction of film is in the colours and the texture.  If you want the colours and not the texture, wanting to keep a much more modern level of sharpness and noise, emulating some of the properties of film is so ubiquitous that I think it's just called "colour grading".  The phrase "film emulation" then is for the texture of film and deliberately wanting the imperfections and aesthetics of it.  You don't have to go hard like I have with Super-16 film + Super-16 lenses levels of softening, but if you did this is easily possible too and FLC has 35mm presets which soften, but do so far more subtly than this.
I'll continue to iterate on the colours and textures, but moving into moving images is probably next, with all the testing of the YT processing and compression that comes with that.
But seriously, imagine telling someone in the 80s that you could fit an interchangeable lens camera capable of shooting feature-film level images in your pocket...
Feedback welcome.

My film friend said that the edges were too sharp for S16, and gave me some examples of things printed on 2383 that look SUPER soft to me.  
It makes me think that the look of film is really two looks:
1) the look of a neg scan (which is digital from then on)
2) the look of a negative printed to a print stock
I wonder how much "film emulation" is actually emulating the first one.  I also wonder what look I'm going for.  
It occurs to me that back in the day what we'd see on analog TV would be low-resolution film scans (having maybe 480 lines) but would have had semi-infinite horizontal resolution (bandwidth limited and all that I know) and would have had zero digital compression, so the grain would have been fully in-tact (and therefore loud and proud).  I suspect the aesthetics I absorbed (and are unconsciously referencing) would have been from music videos, sports videos, etc in the era of MTV (80s and 90s).  In this early time anyone with a low budget would be shooting on 16mm (or 8mm!) and often not the highest quality lenses or cleanest stocks etc.  I'm guessing I probably watched thousands of hours of pure-analog uncompressed 16mm or 8mm footage scanned and broadcast in SD, and those would have been quite DIY / experimental / creative etc, rather than the much more produced and formulaic outputs that came later on.
Thanks!
Like I said above, not targeting and specific pipeline, but I did calibrate the contrast on the first set of images from the GX85 to the DR of 2383, which was 5-6 stops in the linear range.  
The goal is to get something that looks like it could have been shot on some unknown stock.  Realistically, this is a proxy for the images just not looking digital, and apart from trying to emulate VHS or Betamax, there aren't any other analog looks to draw from.  Plus, film did a ton of things that research says that are aesthetically pleasing, and I'm sure I also have some baked-in nostalgia or just acclimation to this look.
Interesting you think of T-max, and think this is fine grain.  The grain on this is based on the 16mm preset in FLC, but modified to be softer.  More on this later.
I looked around and found a few 8mm examples with high contrast, but most were much more faded-looking, even stuff that seems like it was shot recently.
There's this video which has shots like this:

or this one with shots like this:

Thanks!  It's definitely more about training my eye to learn what I like rather than any sense of accuracy, however film has so many things that are desirable that there's so much overlap I couldn't do either one to any degree without also making huge progress in the other!
The technique I'm using is to add the grain first, then soften the image.  This ensures that they have the same amount of softness and we're not dealing with these horrific combinations of sharp footage + soft grain, or the other way around.  
The people I spoke with suggested that this tends to look a bit soft and so they either sharpen afterwards, or add a touch more grain on top.  These shots had a touch more grain on top.
What I didn't do is match the grain to the image.  I added 16mm-sized grain to a sharp image, then softened that.  Maybe I should just add 65mm-sized grain so it matches the resolution of the image, and then adjust the amount and softening to match the stock.
I definitely have more to test.  You're also right about moving grain vs frame grabs.  I'm reluctant to post video samples until I've worked out how much grain to force-feed into YT to get the right amount of it out again. 
Definitely all considerations for a full-historic-emulation.  
I'm not really chasing historical accuracy in the sense that you're talking about, although I might be chasing some specific something I saw once and loved, which is possible (or quite likely) considering I watched a ton of very creative and edgy films growing up, including a lot of early music videos and skateboarding videos, which are much more likely to have been hand-held and with the camera being used to express attitude rather than the restrained professionalism of documentary or narrative cinematographers.
I'm still figuring this out, but I suspect that what I have in mind is a feeling that I'm chasing, or perhaps an attitude, and I'm trying to get closer to that on every level at once.  The colour and tone, the texture, the movement (motion cadence?), the compositions and camera movement, the choice of subjects, then in the edit the pacing and rhythm, the structure of shot combinations and overall arc, as well as the music which I plan to write as well.  It's the whole vertical stack from tech specs to final feeling and emotional aftertaste of the edit.
I have always liked street photography, and for this project (which is sort of a subset of my Night Cinema project) it's really shooting high-attitude moving street images.  The gold standard for this is Illkoncept, who shoots travel videos on digital but has also shot some videos on his 16mm Bolex:
 
From what I understand the Bolex doesn't have that many lenses and the ones available are often very soft, so this 16mm footage is a lot softer than other examples.
This is in contrast to a setup like this, where they have used Vision3 50D and shot on the Laowa Nanomorphs and scanned at 6.5K, so this is sort-of an example of an image pipeline where the negative itself is the limiting factor:
The other thing I've heard is that over the decades they improved the film itself, and what I was lead to believe was that it doubled (or more) in sharpness, so late 8mm film matched early 16mm, late 16mm matched early 35mm, and late 35mm matched 65/70mm.  
Great discussion..  it's forcing me to think about all kinds of things I hadn't really considered, which is the whole point, plus the result I'm getting are improving with each iteration.

Anecdotally, yes, from reddit threads and even Photography Life who have separate pages for the two models and both contain MTF charts that seem to be different (it's not the same image) but the curves appear identical.
https://photographylife.com/lenses/panasonic-lumix-g-14mm-f2-5-asph
https://photographylife.com/lenses/panasonic-lumix-g-14mm-f2-5-ii-asph 
The announcements from Panasonic also use the same description - V1 - from Panasonic announcement:
V2 from DPReview (I couldn't find the announcement of V2 on Panasonics website?
Why do you ask?  Your review at the time was quite favourable.

Typing that reply certainly did make me warm even more to the LX100 and L10, but considering I have the GX85 and 14mm F2.5 already (and are therefore a FREE option!) it's pretty hard to beat for a number of reasons..
The size with the 14/2.5 is similar, and it doesn't get larger when you turn it on:

As I edit in 1080p and am softening the image in-post rather than sharpening it, the 14/2.5 on the GX85 can be a 31mm and a 62mm (with the 2x zoom function) which are both absolutely awesome focal lengths for shooting how I like to shoot.  
I can easily bring other lenses if I am shooting something worth putting some effort into shooting (ie, it's not just an EDC opportunity).
I've shot an absolute ton of tests on the GX85 so I know it inside and out.
Like most of us here, I both crave the simplicity of having a fixed-lens setup that would do most of what I want, but I crave the choice and freedom of the options that an interchangeable lens mount provides!

Already looked a ton of reviews for this one, since is (almost) the camera I was waiting since 2014, when I got my OG LX100 - it was my first 4k camera. Still have it here, internal batery dead, but still functioning well.

For years tried to get an MK II, but the used prices are insane (should drop now). This one solves a lot of problems of the LX100 I and II:
- Finally it have a PDAF sensor on it, and with more resolution to boot (12mp on the OG, 17 mp in MK II, 20 mp in this one).
- The sequential field EVF is gone, is a proper OLED now, the same 2,36mp panel that everyones uses. Never had the tearing issue with my LX100, past in the day it was on par of the others, but now you see the resolution difference.
- Movable LCD. I would prefer a tilt screen instead of a flip, but in todays market, I undersatnd the decision.
- More controls, more customization, LUT support (this is a MUST), switch for stills / video / S&Q, and now is a PASM model (In the LX100 you had to remember to set the shutter speed manually every time you wants to record a video).

I was 100% sure to get one, and I saw the price. Ouch. But newer cameras are pricier each day. 

And after I saw some things:
- The camera is much larger than the LX100 models - in fact, have almost the same size than a S9. Ok, they fitted a much larger battery, but...for m43, it could be much smaller. Battery aside, it could have the old size (even with some video lenght cap, like 30 mins - not the 15 min of the LX100)...and than I realized.
- Panasonic now have the tendency to share body design between cameras (S5II and G9 II, for example). Then my prediction - this body will be shared with the S9 II, EVF and all.
- About the lens - is exactly the same, but the PetaPIxel guys said that Panasonic told them that the dust problem was addressed. And the stills appear much sharper than the MK II, looks like there were som optimization.
- No IBIS - Probably it would cause trouble the the "multi-aspect" of the sensor. The lens does not cover the whole sensor, and vignette would appear if the sensor moves (which does not occur with the lens OIS). Internal space for an IBIS they have for spare - the GX9 is much smaller and have a very good IBIS. They should keep the lens formula the same, just make it larger (to cover the whole sensor) but...profits.

It is a very good camera, and I still want it badly. But is expensive, and for an EDC camera, for my use cases, an RX100 VII is a more versatile and smaller proposition (and costs the same new, much kess used).

The X-E5 is almost a dream camera to me too, and I did not bought one, again for the price. And I shoot less and less, hard to justify it.

Sounds like you should be on the lookout for a used LX100?