Towd

Aye the Nikon clipped. But they had metered for her face, using a lightmeter, and the face was correctly exposed. Both Canon and Nikon have similar brightness and correspond well with lightmeter. I would be annoyed if I take a reading for her face and then it comes out underexposed (the Sony). Of course with any camera one will learn how it works and will adjust accordingly so it’s not a big problem.
Personally I prefer when the camera I’m using correspond with lightmeter standard. 

Ahhhh, "Motion Cadence".  I love it when that old chestnut gets pulled out regarding a cinematic image.  I've spent many days in my career tracking and matchmoving a wide variety of camera footage from scanned film, to digital cinema cameras, to cheap DSLR footage.  So I find the whole motion cadence thing fascinating since I sometimes spend hours to days staring at one shot trying to reverse engineer the movement of a camera so it can be layered with CGI.
So leaving out subtle magical qualities visible to a select subset of humans who have superior visual perception, or describing it like the tasting of a fine wine, I can only think of a few possible reasons for perceptible motion cadence.  I'll lay them out here, but I'm genuinely curious as to any other factors that may contribute to it, because "motion cadence" in general plays hell with computer generated images that typically have zero motion cadence.
#1  ROLLING SHUTTER.  The bane of VFX.  Hate it!  Hate it! Hate it!  For me personally, this must be 90% of what people refer to as motion cadence.  Plays hell with the registration of anything you are trying to add into a moving image.  Pictures, and billboards have to be skewed and fulling rendered images slip in the frame depending on whether you are pinning it to the top, middle, or bottom of the frame.  I work extensively with a software package called Syntheyes that tries to adjust for this, but it can never be fully corrected.  For pinning 2d objects into a shot, Mocha in After Effects offers a skew parameter that will slant the tracking solution to help compensate.  This helps marginally.
#2 Codec Encoding issues.  I have to think this contributes minimally since I think extreme encoding errors would show up more as noise.  I've read theories about how long GOP can contribute to this versus All-I, but I've never really noticed it bending or changing an image in a way I could detect.  I'd think it would be more influenced by rolling shutter however, so I can only think it would contribute to like 5-10% of the motion cadence in an image.  Would love to know if I'm wrong here and if it's a major factor.  More than just casual observation, anything technical I could read regarding this would be welcome.
#3 Variable inconsistent frame recording.  This is what I think most people think they are referring to when they bring up the motion cadence of a camera.  But outside of a camera doing something really bizarro like recording at 30 fps then dropping frames to encode at 24, I can't believe that cameras are that variable in their recording rates.  I may be totally wrong, but do people believe that cameras record frames sometimes a few milliseconds faster and slower from frame to frame?  Does this really happen in DSLR and mirrorless cameras?  I find it hard to believe this would happen.  I could see a possibility of a camera waiting on a buffer to clear before scanning the sensor for the next frame, but I can't believe its all that highly variable.  If it is really that common wouldn't it be fairly trivial to measure and test?  At the very least some kind of millisecond timer could be displayed on a 144 hz or higher monitor and then recorded at 24p to see if the timer interval varies appreciably.
#4 Incorrect shutter angle.  This could be from user error.  I've seen enough of it on Youtube to know it's common.  I'd assume it's also possible that a camera would read the sensor at a non-constant rate for some reason, but I'd think that would show up in rolling shutter anomalies as well.  Dunno about this one, but think it may be more of a stretch.  Should also be visible on a frame level by looking for tearing, warping, or some kind of smearing on the frame.  So, I doubt this happens much, but it should be measurable like rolling shutter with a grid or chart and detectable by matchmoving software the way rolling shutter is.
That's generally all I can think of, and without any kind of proof, I'm calling bulshit on #3, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.  I'd be genuinely intrigued to find that some camera's vary their frame recording intervals at any amount visible to the human eye.
If anyone has any real insight into this, I'd love to read more about it because it directly affects something I deal with frequently.

There's a concept that I particularly like called Satisficing.  The general idea is that you work out what the minimum criteria are, and then you work out how to meet that criteria in the most efficient way.  Applied to equipment, it might be that you need certain resolutions, apertures, lens range, battery life, reliability, etc.  You then work out what options there are and buy the cheapest / simplest / easiest one and then ignore any options that were better than the one you chose.
We kind of talk a lot on here about how we love high quality images and therefore if we could all afford it we'd have an Alexa.  Apart from the times when we often have criteria that rule it out (like, most of us can't afford one!) if we worked out we just needed 1080p RAW we might instead end up with a BM camera instead.  
Personally, I had a Canon 700D and I was dissatisfied with the sharpness (this was before I knew anything about anything) and so I decided to go 4K.  I got the XC10 but ended up being dissatisfied with the images that came out of it because the lens had a very small aperture and I wanted to get more depth - the images from it just looked flat.  Then I got my GH5 and some nice lenses and I love the look of it.  I watch high budget films shot on Alexas / REDs / film / etc and I see the BM RAW from the P4K but the grass isn't greener for me.  When I look at the footage I just want to love the images I get, and with this setup I do.  
There's some part of me that looked at my previous setups and said "no" and now it says "yes" and I don't feel the need to upgrade.  It took a GH5 and a few nice lenses to get over that line for me (as well as me having to work out what it was that was important to me) and now I'm satisficed.
I think that's a good way to think about it, and it can work for the creative elements too.  There will always be a better lens, a higher DR camera, a cleaner more directional mic, a cleaner preamp, a higher bit-depth, a higher bit-rate, etc, but once you're satisficed then those things stop mattering.  If you're feeling the urge to buy then work out what it is that your current equipment doesn't do for you (that you actually miss in real life, not in tests or spec sheets) and then work out what is the cheapest easiest simplest way to fix that, and stop as soon as you get there.
My theory is that some of us like older lenses because they're less sharp, and when we were growing up the cinema was also less sharp, so the old lenses are triggering that nostalgia.
I shoot my GH5 with the least sharpening (and soon to start using 5K open gate mode), lower bitrates, and also with softer lenses and I love the images because they kind of feel timeless to me.  They feel 'right'.  If I look at a 4K YT video shot with an RX100 it looks too sharp.  If I look at footage from my 700D it looks too sharp and compressed, if I turn down the in-camera sharpening then it looks blurry.  Therefore, there must be a middle ground somewhere in there.  That middle ground is kind of my reference, and the look my setup gives me hits that middle ground and so I don't get distracted by how sharp / blurry / compressed the footage looks, and due to the DR and 10-bit it has a kind of film-look to it that also triggers nostalgia for me.  To me it looks timeless.
Who knows what the nostalgia will look like in 30 years time when the people in their teens now are watching over-sharpened 4K YT videos and Transformers 6 will be in their 40s and wanting to create a nostalgic look. Maybe they'll take their 12-bit RAW 8K VR goggle 360 footage and over-sharpen, then blur, and then over-sharpen again to get that digital pushed-to-breaking-point look that they fell in love to, had their first dates watching, etc.

I'd be glad to buy and test/play P4k from you - and so to help you to survive from unpleasant feeling of living-close-to-dead-system  
The more cameras are coming I'm more astonished with mistake that Panasonic made with GH5 that so miscalculatingly overshadowed future products... luckily, they put in it that ugly-wobbling IBIS for preventing really professional shooters to use it and ruin their precious pure cinema art achievements.
But, then right from nowhere came mr Sage with his GHa lut and inject in stubborn GH5 vampire fresh blood...

I think there are possible pitfalls to both options that can be solved, but it depends on how you prefer approaching it.
By shooting on a white background and then expanding it in post, you'll have the benefit of not having to pull a key on your subject.  The trick will be to match your extended background to the foreground element you shot.  I'd personally do this with a soft "garbage mask".  You'll want to frame your foreground subject with enough room so that they obviously don't get cut off by your framing, but you'll also want to leave yourself some room around them for this soft matte.  This will fix any crease between the foreground and background you mentioned above.
You should be able to do this in just about any editing package and it doesn't require Fusion.  I've done soft masks in Premiere and Resolve successfully.  Just use a lot of edge feathering on the mask and place the foreground on a layer above the background.  Cut the mask around your subject and use at least a few hundred pixels of feathering-- maybe more depending on the resolution.  The tricky part depending on your comfort level with grading will be to bring your background element into a similar range to your foreground so that the transition is nearly invisible.  How close your foreground and expanded background are to each other exposure-wise or visually will also be a factor.  If you are just blowing things out to all white, this should be pretty simple though.  You could then potentially just bring in a bit of a vignette on top after matching the foreground and background.
[edit]:  I should point out you'll need to have enough of your white background surrounding the subject for this soft transition area of the matte.  If the white background is too tight around your actor, you wont have room for this soft mask to transition to the background smoothly.
The second option of pulling a key can also yield really nice results, but it will also depend a lot on the camera you use, the quality of your greenscreen and how uniformly lit it is, and possibly your comfort pulling keys.  However with this solution you can just drop in your new background and call it done.  No real matching between foreground and background exposure.  The only downside, is that this solution will always have a some subtle edge degradation where you pulled the key.  But it can be practically invisible.
In both cases just be sure you give yourself enough framing on your subject for the final composition, so you don't suddenly realize you don't have legs on your actor when you pull the camera out in the comp.  ?

I think there are possible pitfalls to both options that can be solved, but it depends on how you prefer approaching it.
By shooting on a white background and then expanding it in post, you'll have the benefit of not having to pull a key on your subject.  The trick will be to match your extended background to the foreground element you shot.  I'd personally do this with a soft "garbage mask".  You'll want to frame your foreground subject with enough room so that they obviously don't get cut off by your framing, but you'll also want to leave yourself some room around them for this soft matte.  This will fix any crease between the foreground and background you mentioned above.
You should be able to do this in just about any editing package and it doesn't require Fusion.  I've done soft masks in Premiere and Resolve successfully.  Just use a lot of edge feathering on the mask and place the foreground on a layer above the background.  Cut the mask around your subject and use at least a few hundred pixels of feathering-- maybe more depending on the resolution.  The tricky part depending on your comfort level with grading will be to bring your background element into a similar range to your foreground so that the transition is nearly invisible.  How close your foreground and expanded background are to each other exposure-wise or visually will also be a factor.  If you are just blowing things out to all white, this should be pretty simple though.  You could then potentially just bring in a bit of a vignette on top after matching the foreground and background.
[edit]:  I should point out you'll need to have enough of your white background surrounding the subject for this soft transition area of the matte.  If the white background is too tight around your actor, you wont have room for this soft mask to transition to the background smoothly.
The second option of pulling a key can also yield really nice results, but it will also depend a lot on the camera you use, the quality of your greenscreen and how uniformly lit it is, and possibly your comfort pulling keys.  However with this solution you can just drop in your new background and call it done.  No real matching between foreground and background exposure.  The only downside, is that this solution will always have a some subtle edge degradation where you pulled the key.  But it can be practically invisible.
In both cases just be sure you give yourself enough framing on your subject for the final composition, so you don't suddenly realize you don't have legs on your actor when you pull the camera out in the comp.  ?

I will agree on that front. Full frame is to a large extent... overrated. However, it does have benefits when shooting in low light conditions. I think it's nice to have the options anyway. On a positive note, it's clear what Panasonic need to do to take the lead. Fix AF and add that dam flippy screen. If they do those two things, the S-Line will have more than a fighting chance. Like I said, the image out of the camera looks good and low-light is pretty amazing. 
Oh one last thing.... the system needs to be less costly... the price of admission is too high for what it is. 

Nice piece.
Oh and the cheque is in the post for this plug

Mind you, I hope the notes he was taking were along the lines of "lets track this maverick down and license it" rather than "lets track this cheeky bastard down and sue him" !

Seriously this is great for them. I love Puerto Rico, a beautiful underrated island. Unlike many Caribbean places, the island is quite big with a lot of diversity. Not much tourism beyond San Juan and a few stupid places. You can totally find beautiful pristine beaches with 3 people standing there. There are jungle, coast, mountain, lakes, surf spots, rivers, etc. The food is delicious and the criminality is not bad for the region.

As a US territory, it has the best of both world: the relative good infrastructure and service of a developed country (highway, stores, emergency services) and the exoticism of a tropical island. No need to deal with customs, immigration and shipping tax. The island is very well connected by airlines with plenty of cheap flights that deserved many cities in the east coast (Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, NYC, etc.).

Hell, I would go there to if could. They got plenty of tax incentive for their business and they probably got this mansion on the beach for the price of a 2 bedrooms in a major US city.

I did this short video showing the island lat time I visited, super cool place
 

For me the eye opener came from watching some old... really old vintage footage. It wasn’t shot great, but still looked like cinema. Motion is the secret sauce. And that makes sense... it is after all “Motion Picture”... so it’s not a big leap to imagine motion would be the key.

It depends on what you're trying to achieve.  Bayhem is a style of art, but so are the styles of films like Russian Ark, or how Nicholas Cage acts.
It doesn't mean we have to like them, or emulate them, or that any style is any better or worse than any other.  Don't be afraid to admit you like a particular style.  Study it, practice it, celebrate it, and own it.  and then get paid for it
There's a whole debate around selling out vs being a genuine artist that I think people misunderstand.  If you compromise your art just to make money then that's unfortunate, but who are we to judge.  And if you happen to make art that lots of people like, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

Just as an FYI, I used to shoot Nikon for stills, so my lens collection is primarily old Nikon glass.  Even when delivering at 1080p, I've found I need to defocus my GH5 footage to match the softness of footage coming out of Red cameras.  Once that that sharpness creeps into the image, it seems to hang on even after the downrez.
I think I read a while back that some users like Sage only shoot in 1080p with their GH5 for the more cinematic image.  Being the maximalist that I am, I can't seem to let myself do that when 4k and 5k are available formats.  But yeah, GH5 footage is REALLY sharp compared to other cameras I've matched it to.

I really like shooting with the 5k "open gate" format on the GH5.  I find it to to be practically indistinguishable to the eye from the 4k 422 mode even when I zoom in and pixel peep a shot.  You can then drop it on a 4k timeline as a center extraction which allows some panning and stabilization possibilities.  This also allows you to deliver in C4k or UHD if you are just out collecting B-Roll that may be used in a variety of projects.  All that said, I find that the vast majority of the time, I'm still delivering 1080p as a final video format.  But the 5k full frame feels the most future proof down the line.  It'll probably upres to 8k pretty well if we're ever delivering that format in 10 years.  GH5 footage is so sharp-- really too sharp!   I've matched it with 5k and 6k Red footage in projects, and find I have to always use a small amount of the defocus filter on it in post so it is not so crisp.  This is with the GH5's sharpness set to the lowest settings.
As far as extreme grading, I typically always shoot V-LOG and run my footage through Neat Video first so the 420 vs 422 has not made much of a difference.  I got into this habit while salvaging 5D mark II footage as it really helps the gradability of 8-bit.
One thing you will notice is that you lose the Ex Tele Converter zoom functionality in 5k, but you can still punch in in post on the image, so the versatility is still there.  Maybe if I was shooting something that I knew was going to be shot entirely with the Ex Tele Converter, I'd just shoot in 4k 422 for the extra chroma sampling, but that's never come up for me.
The one place where I do find the 4k 422 better is in green screen extraction.  The 422 pulls a finer edge.  Where any time I've had to pull a key on 420 footage, I'm left with a 1 pixel outline on my initial matte edge from the chroma sub sampling even after running it through Neat Video.  You can erode the mask to fix the edge, but then you loose fine hair detail, etc.  I have tested the two modes and both are quite usable compared to some old DSLR 420 8 bit footage, but the 422 is marginally nicer.  Obviously an external recorder for green screen footage would be ideal, but in a pinch I've found the 4k 422 recorded internally to give really nice results-- especially for a 2k delivery.  And I don't have or use an external recorder with my GH5.
Obviously, if you are doing an elaborate green screen shoot, use a pro camera with 444 uncompressed color output, but I sometimes just need to shoot a quick element for a composite and the GH5 in 4k 422 works just fine. 
For my needs GH5 is just a great little workhorse to get footage to support a larger production or to generate high quality footage for any quick small budget or personal project.  I love that I can just throw the camera in a bag without external monitors, gimbals, or other crap and shoot high quality footage from such a tiny form factor.  There really is nothing else like it.

I really like shooting with the 5k "open gate" format on the GH5.  I find it to to be practically indistinguishable to the eye from the 4k 422 mode even when I zoom in and pixel peep a shot.  You can then drop it on a 4k timeline as a center extraction which allows some panning and stabilization possibilities.  This also allows you to deliver in C4k or UHD if you are just out collecting B-Roll that may be used in a variety of projects.  All that said, I find that the vast majority of the time, I'm still delivering 1080p as a final video format.  But the 5k full frame feels the most future proof down the line.  It'll probably upres to 8k pretty well if we're ever delivering that format in 10 years.  GH5 footage is so sharp-- really too sharp!   I've matched it with 5k and 6k Red footage in projects, and find I have to always use a small amount of the defocus filter on it in post so it is not so crisp.  This is with the GH5's sharpness set to the lowest settings.
As far as extreme grading, I typically always shoot V-LOG and run my footage through Neat Video first so the 420 vs 422 has not made much of a difference.  I got into this habit while salvaging 5D mark II footage as it really helps the gradability of 8-bit.
One thing you will notice is that you lose the Ex Tele Converter zoom functionality in 5k, but you can still punch in in post on the image, so the versatility is still there.  Maybe if I was shooting something that I knew was going to be shot entirely with the Ex Tele Converter, I'd just shoot in 4k 422 for the extra chroma sampling, but that's never come up for me.
The one place where I do find the 4k 422 better is in green screen extraction.  The 422 pulls a finer edge.  Where any time I've had to pull a key on 420 footage, I'm left with a 1 pixel outline on my initial matte edge from the chroma sub sampling even after running it through Neat Video.  You can erode the mask to fix the edge, but then you loose fine hair detail, etc.  I have tested the two modes and both are quite usable compared to some old DSLR 420 8 bit footage, but the 422 is marginally nicer.  Obviously an external recorder for green screen footage would be ideal, but in a pinch I've found the 4k 422 recorded internally to give really nice results-- especially for a 2k delivery.  And I don't have or use an external recorder with my GH5.
Obviously, if you are doing an elaborate green screen shoot, use a pro camera with 444 uncompressed color output, but I sometimes just need to shoot a quick element for a composite and the GH5 in 4k 422 works just fine. 
For my needs GH5 is just a great little workhorse to get footage to support a larger production or to generate high quality footage for any quick small budget or personal project.  I love that I can just throw the camera in a bag without external monitors, gimbals, or other crap and shoot high quality footage from such a tiny form factor.  There really is nothing else like it.

A7III Pros:

- better autofocus
- better low-light
- better dynamic range
- lighter body
- larger full-frame sensor(for shallower DOF)


GH5 Pros:

- 10bit 4:2:2 codecs
- ALL-I codecs
- 4k DCI
- anamorphic modes (open gate 5k)
- anamorphic de-squeeze
- load 4 custom luts for v-log l preview
- better IBIS
- lighter lenses
- 4k 60fps
- 1080 180fps
- variable frame rates
- waveform & vectorscope
- smaller m4/3 sensor (deeper DOF for same aperture)
- full-size HDMI port
- syncro scan
- less rolling shutter
- fully articulating touchscreen
- Lots of factors here and m43 can do a lot with DOF as well. m43 can use a focal reducer which makes it more like a APS-C sensor size in terms of DOF. You are now only one stop away from the same DOF as FF. Shoot f4 comfortably on FF? Well f2.8 is pretty easy to get on m43 even with zoom lenses and can easily match the DOF of FF. This is again such a non issue unless you insist on having razor thin DOF from FF by shooting 50mm f1.2. Optically not the best solution and almost impossible to focus with for serious production work where clients pay you. It honestly only takes a sliver of extra effort to achieve similar DOF on m43. Can't replicate every situation but the importance is much less significant than you think it is. Plus very few Hollywood movies actually use that shallow of DOF. They shoot s35mm (close to APS-C size) and not FF and they tend to stop down their lenses to f4 or f5.6. Extremely easy to match that on m43 and even easier once you add a Speedbooster which essentially makes the GH5 an exact match to s35mm size sensors. On the GH5s using a Speedbooster XL gets you around a 1.2x crop which is half way between APS-C and FF so not a huge difference in terms of DOF.
The exelent IBIS, strong codec, robust build quality, great film maker ergonomics, 40k 60p and full size HDMI makes it feel like a more profesional camera then the whole a7 serie.
I owned both but choose to keep the GH5 and sell the A7s. Also used the A7s MII allot.
I sometimes miss the full frame aspect, but not to much. I don't miss any DR since I think the Slog3 and Slog2 is unusable in the A7 serie for the weak codec.
So I actually feel the GH5 has more DR since the robust codec let's you play around with the levels better.

The GH5 and GH5s typically give less heat and more reliable operation than the Sonys.  There's also longer battery life, less rolling shutter, and more high speed frame rates combined with better data rates and codecs.

The GH5 and GH5s typically give less heat and more reliable operation than the Sonys.  There's also longer battery life, less rolling shutter, and more high speed frame rates combined with better data rates and codecs.

The GH5 and GH5s typically give less heat and more reliable operation than the Sonys.  There's also longer battery life, less rolling shutter, and more high speed frame rates combined with better data rates and codecs.

The GH5 and GH5s typically give less heat and more reliable operation than the Sonys.  There's also longer battery life, less rolling shutter, and more high speed frame rates combined with better data rates and codecs.

It's funny how people talk about the GH5, and GH5S and P4K in similar terms, to me the GH5 is in a different class of cameras because it has IBIS.  It might seem to be just another spec, but for anyone who needs to get usable hand-held shots it's practically the king.  That's why I bought one over the A7III, P4K, GH5S, EOS-R, Fuji XH-1, etc.  If I'd not needed IBIS then I would have been ordering the P4K like a shot.
The 'look' of high-quality older cameras is an interesting thing, and I know that @mercer and @webrunner5 have an eye for it.  I think I do as well, having ranked the cameras in the 2012 Zacuto Camera Challenge in descending order of price as a blind test, but I'm not sure what part of the look it is that I'm attuned to.  
I suspect that one aspect people often get attached to is that it doesn't look as real as modern cameras.  I've noticed that modern cameras and modern TVs look more real somehow, and to my eyes that hasn't been a good thing.  Watching TV soaps on the odd occasion I visit someone and the TV is on I am struck by how much it looks like normal people in a room rather than TV stars in a fictional world.  When previously you might have watched a show you're not familiar with for five minutes and come away with questions about the story or characters, now I'm left with impressions about how makeup needs to improve and the whole thing looks like a home video despite being shot professionally.  
I suspect that this comparison to how cinema used to look is simply one that younger generations just don't have, so they can't be using it as their benchmark.  I once read an article saying that the music you listen to at 14 years old is the music that you will like forever because at that age your stage of development and hormones and whatever make the things in your life at that time kind of baked-in, so they stay with you.  If you were 14 and mostly watching TV at home and going to the movies in a digital projection setup with THX everything, then that surreal and magical aesthetic of film just wouldn't be in your experience.
In terms of 10-bit or more workflows, look to the ML thread.  I shot test clips at 10, 12 and 14 bit RAW and compared them and decided that I could barely tell the difference between 10 and 12 bits.  ML aficionados with an eye for colour claimed 14-bits was the way to go, but acknowledged that 12-bits was almost as good and that shooting 14 was mostly because it was there and didn't cost them anything.  The difference between 8-bit from my XC10 and 10-bit from my GH5 is huge, 10-bit RAW would be better again due to the lack of compression, but I think 12-bit RAW or 14-bit RAW really aren't going to excite many people in a practical kind of way.
Lastly, @thebrothersthre3 the reputation of MFT matters to Panasonic.  If they don't reassure their MFT customers, the uncertainty might lead to some people switch to FF that would have stayed in MFT, which then would mean less customers for the GH6, devaluing the system and potentially causing a feedback loop that devalues the system.  Technology devalues in camera bodies, sure, but lens systems devalue at a different rate.  If you don't think that people care what their equipment is worth, have a read in the XC10 thread, and see how many people liked the camera and the image but sold it saying they couldn't keep an investment in a camera that was falling in value.

And with their awful batteries they'll last... What? 50 or so minutes, assuming it doesn't overheat? And they'll still lack decent stabilization, awful Sony colors, low bit rates, and all the other features the GH5 introduced. And don't get me started on the rolling shutter I'd have to put up with for something as fast paced as wrestling or other sports! 
It's so weird that people always try to sell me, and other satisfied users, on FF and Sony in particular.  Part of it is they don't get my production situation, which is understandable, but part of it also feels like they just can't understand that there are legitimate benefits to MFT and that sensor size really isn't that important. 
Wrestling events are generally 3-5 hours, with an 15 minute intermission in the middle. I NEED a camera that can shoot 90 to 120 minutes straight. I can't worry about batteries, overheating, etc. because every second I'm not recording during the action is a bad thing and creates issues in post. Sure I can work around them but why not avoid them completely if possible? I'm also constantly moving around the wrestling ring, so that stabilization and the weight of the lens and camera is a godsend. I don't want to have to use my gimbal or shoulder rig on these shoots, the simpler and lighter my set up the easier it is on my fat ass for the 3-5 hours I'm on my feet and shooting! ?
Maybe I'd feel differently if I wasn't regularly just a 1 to 2 person crew. But I have way too many responsibilities and things to worry about when shooting events and these MFT cameras make my life a lot easier. 

MFT will die when people cease buying MFT cameras and lenses. People will stop buying MFT when it no longer has benefits over larger sensors. 
I'm invested in MFT and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I think it will continue to lead the way in video features, will continue to offer better stabilization, and will continue to improve on its weaker points, like low light and auto focus. 
I'm keeping an eye on full frame, of course, but even if a full frame equivalent of the GH5 came out tomorrow I have no real need to upgrade. It's just not that important to me and I don't really get why it is for everyone else. 

Short video of Chicago trying the GH5. There is 4K, 180 VFR slomo (with aliasing...), timelapse and hyperlapse. Even though the sensor can't match my 5D and 6D for ISO, the DR seems better for timelapse.
 

You're watching it and have the exciting revelation of "Right, they're all the same in the final analysis so all I'll ever need is something that shoots 2K RAW so fuck all you manufacturers trying to brain wash me to lust after higher specs than that, its clearly a waste and I'll never need it and I'll now never even think twice about anything with a higher resolution than that."
Its truly liberating and you feel you've broken free of the shackles of this ludicrous pursuit of something you don't need and that you'll never be able to justify having financially, technically and especially creatively.
Hurrah!!
And then the Alexa 65 came on.
 

My bad Hyalinejim.   I was not trying to specifically reply to you.   I think you should get post of the month for your work here, and you obviously know what you are doing.
I just see a lot of replies from people who seem to be looking for help at finding a starting place when working with V-Log.
So, what I meant was that the Arri LUT generator is nice for getting near Rec 709 and playing around with rolloffs, but its not going to be as precise as Panasonic's LUT for getting to Rec.709 on a GH5.