Phil A

A while ago Zhiyun Tech informed on their Facebook page that they will not honor any service/warranty issues when not bought via the official importers. I'm not actually sure if that stance is even legal in the countries with strong consumer protection laws but it might be unnecessary hassle in any case. So maybe check that beforehand.

Wow, GH5 so bad. You can see the auto focus pumping all the time in the video of the moon. Are they using face detection?
 
Just kidding 

Wow, GH5 so bad. You can see the auto focus pumping all the time in the video of the moon. Are they using face detection?
 
Just kidding 

Wow, GH5 so bad. You can see the auto focus pumping all the time in the video of the moon. Are they using face detection?
 
Just kidding 

I have to agree regarding the new Leica kit lens. People seem to be very positive about it but all I care for is what the picture looks like in the end from an aesthetic point of view (I don't need perfect sharpness, don't really care about vignetting, I can live with some mild distortion, etc.) and no one would get excited about a 24-120mm f/5.6 - 8 lens for his 5D III regarding what the results look like. I bought a cheap, used Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 but I find to only use it at the both extreme ends of the range (might sell it and get a small wide angle for gimbal work + one of the 42.5mm lenses instead). m4/3 only really works with the primes in my opinion but, as I probably mentioned multiple times before, I also wouldn't want to shoot lenses slower than f/2.8 on a FF camera when it comes to photography.
Then there's the blah quality of many m4/3 lenses that gets tarted up in-camera or automatically in most raw converters. I always heard in the beginning of mirrorless how lenses could be smaller, cheaper and better because they have to cover less sensor real estate. But then you get examples like the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 with a smashing 8.5% distortion at 12mm (maybe they can even increase it and market it as a fisheye zoom?), that by far exceeds the 4.3% of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L which by most regards is considered a rather mediocre lens in image quality. Most of the really good lenses are anything but cheap & small.

I have to agree regarding the new Leica kit lens. People seem to be very positive about it but all I care for is what the picture looks like in the end from an aesthetic point of view (I don't need perfect sharpness, don't really care about vignetting, I can live with some mild distortion, etc.) and no one would get excited about a 24-120mm f/5.6 - 8 lens for his 5D III regarding what the results look like. I bought a cheap, used Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 but I find to only use it at the both extreme ends of the range (might sell it and get a small wide angle for gimbal work + one of the 42.5mm lenses instead). m4/3 only really works with the primes in my opinion but, as I probably mentioned multiple times before, I also wouldn't want to shoot lenses slower than f/2.8 on a FF camera when it comes to photography.
Then there's the blah quality of many m4/3 lenses that gets tarted up in-camera or automatically in most raw converters. I always heard in the beginning of mirrorless how lenses could be smaller, cheaper and better because they have to cover less sensor real estate. But then you get examples like the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 with a smashing 8.5% distortion at 12mm (maybe they can even increase it and market it as a fisheye zoom?), that by far exceeds the 4.3% of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L which by most regards is considered a rather mediocre lens in image quality. Most of the really good lenses are anything but cheap & small.

One thing that's becoming increasingly apparent about Fuji is that the corrections that they have going on with their lenses don't play nice when you're using them in video mode.
God knows what it would look like of they added their own version of IBIS into the equation.
 

FWIW, the basic technique of match-cutting has certainly been part of the craft from the earliest days of montage editing.  Now, since the tempo of modern editing is so frantic and kinetic I'd call this evolution of the style "hyper-match-cut" as it's over and above even the fast paced stuff we're used to in more "standard" edits.
Also, the craft to aggressively accentuate the blend of movement is obviously such a huge priority it becomes the prominent aesthetic and the entire justification of the video.
Cool, to be sure.  Enjoyable in short doses as it's style above substance and fun to look at.  Perfect for impressionistic travel films.  
How well does it work for fictional narrative though?  I suppose it depends.  
Alright, so this is going to be a bit of a tangent, but I must say since this thread has me thinking about it, after watching "Jason Bourne" last night, I felt that the fast cut style was pushed beyond my tolerance.  Your mileage may differ, but for me it became unnecessary distraction rather than an effective technique.  
However, it was interesting to note how incredibly short the editor/director was willing to make a shot and still attempt to maintain narrative cohesion.  The answer, as much as I could tell, was about a 4th of a second.  For me, it was like this:  visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a knife falling to the ground, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, he landed a punch there, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a gun, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, his wound is a liability, etc., etc.  --And all that happens in about 2 seconds.  
I'm actually not being dismissively critical of the "mess" part, (flying elbows, CU's of motion blurred faces) because I realize it's designed (or tolerated?) to be a sort of impressionistic din and then the incredibly short but important visual clues let the viewer connect to the unfolding sequence. I'm just fascinated by deconstructing the technique and the limits they were willing to push.
So, it works for me when it's short and highly stylized as in these travel videos, but kinda annoying when looking at it for extended action sequences.

Made up my mind on lenses 

Made up my mind on lenses 

Made up my mind on lenses 

Made up my mind on lenses 

Made up my mind on lenses 

No it doesn't.
A LUT doesn't know if shots were taken in a forest.

3 isn't a great range scale for a rumour is it?
That only gets you from almost certainly true to could be true to no way is that true.
Or from Elvis is dead to Elvis is alive to Elvis is alive and spearheading an alien invasion of 9 foot cyborgs in rhinestone clad jumpsuits.
I might start a rumours site with a Spinal Tap scale where the rumours go up to 11.
 

Now you can clearly see the black screens on the Sonys when video recording. lol

I have a doc I'm shooting this summer and my wife and I got the voightlander 25 and 42 f/.95 for the job. 
Not a lot shot with the lenses just yet, but I'm happy with the tests I've been doing. 
I've also been using my Oly 12-40 f/2.8 for corporate work. Looks fine. good rendering and sharpness. 

I didn't really test it yet, only shot some Hyperlapse travel stuff with it yet and cursed the lacking dynamic range of the phone. If I find time this week I'll try to make a comparison for you. I can compare 120fps with iPhone, A6300 and NX1 if anyone cares.

17.5 Voigt and 42.5 Panaleica are the best MFT lenses.

I've been using 5D3 Magic Lantern RAW for a few years now and it's my personal gold standard for image quality as I'm very familiar with it, can predict the results I'll get in various situations and have developed my own look that I like using in post. I do a lot of documentary and corporate stuff and wanted to do more handheld, so I got the GH5 for its IBIS, 10bit V-Log, 4K and general ease of use. Although the GH5's colour is an improvement on its predecessors, the 5D3 is nicer looking to me. So I wanted to see if I could tweak the GH5's VLog colour to be more similar to the colour I get from Magic Lantern Cinelog-C, processed via Adobe Camera Raw (other debayering workflows will give different results).
I shot a chart with both cameras, extracted the squares and put them side by side in Resolve. V-Log on the left, ML on the right:
 

 
I used Hue v Hue and Hue v Sat to line up the signal on the vectorscope:
 

 
Here you can see the effect of this correction.This is accurately white balanced V-Log (default colour) with a curve and saturation added:
 

 
And here's the same shot with the colour correction applied:
 

 
Skin goes from green-ish to pink-ish. Reds become more saturated, blues are pulled back. Foliage separates out into varying shades of yellow to green to blue-sh green, rather than being one big block of pure green. So next, I wanted to test this by comparing the same shots to Magic Lantern RAW. Would this correction really turn my GH5 into a handheld and more usable version of my 5D3?
I stuck the GH5 on top of the 5D3. I shot the 5D3 at 3520 x 1320 (the maximum resolution I can get that's both continuous and at a sensible aspect ratio) - this has a crop factor of 1.63x. ISO was 100, and aperture at f5.6 on the Canon 24-105. The GH5 was 10 bit V-Log, Cinema 4K, ISO 400, aperture f4 (roughly equivalent) on the Leica 12-60. I used shutter speed to control exposure, so motion blur is different between shots. It seems like the GH5 has around 0.66 stops more info in the highlights at the same exposure as the 5D, so I shot it one stop over to maximise DR.
 
 
First I corrected the 5D shots to the way I wanted them to look. Then I tried to get the GH5 to match. It's not a perfect match by any means, there are individual hues that tend to go awry a little, especially in the first shot. But for me the exercise is a success: the GH5 footage looks more like Canon Magic Lantern than it would straight out of the camera. And I would be happy to intercut the two, or to use the GH5 in situations that are more suited to its features. The take home message is that V-Log has a lot of grading potential - you're not necessarily stuck with Panasonic's colours on this camera.
A nice surprise for me was how much detail is in the 3.5K 5D files compared to Cinema 4K GH5, especially when sharpened. However, it's not very practical to shoot in its high resolution modes at the moment, due to the slow refresh rate of the LCD preview.
If you want to check out the files yourself, here are a series of matched pairs of 5D DNGs, and GH5 V-Log TIFFS.
FOLDER:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFdi1FZ3hma09YZms
ALL FILES ZIPPED:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwzsbjMgrAwzTFJZby0xSTV6VmM

How about the ability to have baked in LUTs? 
That would give amazing color control and also produce better results than doing it in post. 
 

The GH5 offers so much in terms of usability, it really gets out of the way and lets you be creative. IBIS, 4K, different slow-mo modes etc..  all allow for this. Even if the pure quality might be exceeded by other cameras, you might be able to shoot more interesting stuff thanks to the GH5 feature set. Which ultimately makes for better looking stuff. 
I was mega on the fence and in a lot of ways it looks like a mildly improved GH4, image wise. But I really want one now. Just seems like it'd be fun to shoot with and there's nothing *wrong* with the quality. In skilled hands, it's gonna look great. 

The reason there is so much amazing footage and shitty footage from the GH5 is because it is an amazing but cheap camera.
 
Thus you have both skilled and total n00bs using it! Remember it is not all about the camera, but the hands using it.

It's one of these "why am I like this?" moments. On the way home from work quickly bought a GH5 and a used Olympus 12-40mm. "No ragrets" 
Good point! Canon FD or Nikkor Ai-s are probably the way to go. I'll get a Zhongyi LensTurbo II for Canon EF next week for my Samyang lenses and I already have an F to EF adapter so maybe I'll go for the Nikkors, but the FD are so nice. Hard decision.