webrunner5

If you think the a7S is a better camera than the GH5 then you are using a very selective set of criteria.  They are both great systems, but the GH5 also has great picture quality, and wipes the floor with the Sony device in terms of usability, reliability, portability, and adaptability. 

THis is getting crazy. ANd this camera is as good as a A7s mk ii until 25,000 and even at. Who gives a shit about ISO 200000, 300000!
 
This camera is made with no IBIS because Pros DON"T want IBIS. It is jittery as hell with it; You can never turn it off.

Well we all must admit this thread has at least been exciting to put it mildly.
You lost me with the FS700, that camera had the worse image ever in a Sony camera. I really doubt the GH5s is going to be proved to have a shitty output.

f8 plus 25k for a7s would be the same as f4 plus 6400 for gh5s regarding light gathering and dof,  putting the GH5s into an advantage for a CINEMATIC image, A7s showing nasty artefacts, GH5s absent of any of these nasties and with much more vivid color. Additionally I would put my speedbooster on it and put "my":) GH5s on F5.6, equalling the DOF of f11 on the A7s.

Better auto focus too:
 
"After spending lots of time comparing all the videos from both camera, I feel very comfortable to say the GH5S has noticeably better video tracking performance when compared to the GH5. (GH5S running pre-production firmware 0.2 GH5 running firmware 2.2)
 
GH5S’s focus tracking just seems to be more responsive, it pick up changes a lot quicker. And the most important thing is the consistency seems to be much better than the GH5. With the GH5, when it detects and tracks the subject, frankly I think it works not too bad. The problem is that every now and then, the camera would just take a nap and stop or take a long time to follow the subject. Now with the GH5S, while it is still not perfect, but the consistency is just so much better. The GH5S almost always can detect any changes in focus and adjust reasonably quickly and correctly afterwards. I also notice a lot less overshoot when it’s adjusting focus as well when compare to the GH5."
 
If the GH5S is already that good with pre-production firmware, how much better is it going to be once polished up and shipped? :-D
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLNQmaEdBUQ
 
http://www.photobyrichard.com/reviewbyrichard/panasonic-lumix-gh5s-review/

Well this is not going to put Canon and Sony out of business, but this camera makes m4/3 nearly as good as FF and in some areas maybe even better. That alone is huge. A small camera with small lenses that cost less than the big boys on the same playing field. That is revolutionary in a sense. The GH5 didn't make that kind of impact, but I think this GH5s will.

I figured you would already be convinced.:) As if I was comparing "Gone with the wind" and "Avatar" regarding their boxoffice success, I was assuming that I have included that kind of "inflation factor" in my observation and judgement. Comparing GH5s to GH5 then, if picture quality is up to EVA standards and lowlight up to C300II standards then this camera has more going for it than I was assuming just one hour ago, to say the least. It would be a cinema camera with image quality just like a c300ii or a varicam lt with a price being very laughable by comparison. Rolling shutter would be interesting to know, as well if it has a setting for zero sharpening.

Just saw the asking price. m4/3 isn't what it used to be.

Quote from the video comparison with the a7S:
 

I've been saying this for a long time that is the downside of the a7S, what good is insanely lowlight if your shallow DoF is impractical??

With the GH5S you can shoot both in low light *and* a DoF that makes sense for the shot. 

Oh come on if I was a 12 year old boy that is the first place I would go LoL. But I would argue that their is a Lot of good Forums on Facebook. I have a bunch of Video, RV forums earmarked on there I visit. And no I nave Not seen IronFilm's stuff on there.  I think he is fooling us.
"The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state."
Hell that sounds just like California!!

Hard to be a God... interesting... I’ve never heard of this film, but it looks awesome with a really cool premise.
I really appreciate your constant support Marty... you’re the best member of this damn forum.
Carry lights... lights? Let’s not get too fancy Marty... if it doesn’t attach to a cold shoe, I probably won’t be using it... only available and practical light for me... LOL.

NOTE: This is not a counterpoint to anything you wrote, just using it as a springboard to share my thoughts on the EVA1, as an owner.
The image is definitely what's most important to me -- color, skin, DR, highlight roll-off... it's all handled beautifully. I think the perceived shortcomings are being blown out of proportion because none of them have gotten in my way. Bad LCD? I wouldn't shoot 4k with a 3.5" monitor in the first place. The Panasonic LCD stays at home while my SmallHD 502 or 702 take the LCD feed over SDI. EF mount a bad choice? Not for me as every lens set i own (contax-zeiss, leica, sigma) has an EF mount. Bad build quality? Plastic shell, yes. But it has a magnesium alloy frame. I've owned the EVA1 since November 8 (my two month-iversary!) and have shot with it nearly every day. Haven't suffered any build quality issues. No DPAF? I don't happen to shoot the sort of content that I'd risk relying on autofocus for. No EVF? I think built-in EVFs are a pain to use because they're placed at the rear. My Gratical Eye is much more flexible. Noise at higher ISOs? Compare the EVA1's very fine, tight noise character to the splotchy, clumpy noise you see with the Sonys and Canons. Also, the internal noise reduction works well, but even better, the EVA1's noise pattern lifts out beautifully with no perceivable loss of detail.
Where I work, a lot of FS5, FS7, & A7SII material comes across my desk to be graded and it's always a bit of a fight for one reason or another. Comparatively, the EVA1 is a joy to grade as you guessed, much like the Varicam. This camera is so easy to work with, and I was so happy after the first month, that I bought the extended 3 year warranty. I'll be shooting with my "baby varicam" for a good while.
Truly the only complaint I've got for the EVA1 is that it doesn't offer RAW output or 400mbps encoding yet. Soon, I know. But not soon enough. 
And one little thing that I really love is that it shoots 2K, not just HD. It is a cinema camera afterall, but most in this class only do 1920x1080. And as I often have my films exhibited in theaters from a DCP, it'll be nice not to have to do a little blow-up to make up for those missing 128 pixels on the side. It's a small thing, but appreciated.

wow, in comparison I waaaay overpaid for my Lanparte GoPro/smartphone gimbal

I hate to agree with such a dire prediction, but in many ways I do. YouTube is one problem... 24 hour news is a problem, too. Whichever side you're on politically, I think most of us can agree that the dynamics between the current administration and the media are broken and hurtful and cruel. (And worse, weirdly addictive.)
The internet is one of the most significant and empowering technological innovations in the history of civilization (imo). The best metaphor for technology that I know of is the Prometheus myth; now, things are moving so fast that we can really see the world burning. But at the same time there is less famine and disease and suffering than there has ever been.
Bad YouTube videos don't bother me much because there's also good stuff. What bothers me more are the comments and bullying. I never really watched much reality tv, or a lot of popular sitcoms, but I still like tv a lot. YouTube is fine. I do wish it were easier for niche content creators to see similar returns to the big guys, though. Maybe that will happen later. The current landscape bothers me a bit, but it's not causing me to freak out. Same shit. Different sandwich.
What does bother me is the Neo-tribal and feudal discourse that the internet for whatever reason (anonymity? lack of empathy?) promotes. What also bothers me is the addictive nature of it (and of loot boxes and social media apps that are modeled after gambling). I think we can get past this, but real name forums don't seem much better (RedUser is a pretty tribal place still) and I'm not sure VR will help or hurt–it has the potential to do both. It's more a question, as always, of how we respond.
The scariest part is when you see online feudalism ingress into the real world. Cyberbullying leading to suicide... Alt-right (and far left) violence fueled by echo chambers on reddit and 4chan... ISIS recruitment... etc. YouTube comments come to life. As a whole, humans are a resilient species. We'll adapt to change, take responsibility, repent, and collectively sacrifice ourselves, even sacrifice our civil liberties, whatever it takes for the greater good. The question to me now is the cost of it all, the cost of fast innovation and the difficulty we're having adapting to it.
I don't want to see a nuclear war started over a twitter fight. Maybe it's selfish of me–maybe the result of that would be lasting world peace, much as Americans stopped fighting Americans after the Civil War and WWII brought a global economy and political fraternity that up until now was working well. Good still won, despite the cost. But to me, personally, perhaps selfishly, I don't want to see nuclear war at any cost. I suspect humanity on an evolutionary level has a need for a tribal identity that will always divide us, and I think that now that we have the ability to destroy ourselves we have to address that at a deeper level–perhaps by transcending violence and feudalism, perhaps even by transcending capitalism some day (not for a while, I think capitalism is the best thing we've currently got).
As technology empowers us more and more, as a species, we need to rise to the occasion. It's the Prometheus myth after all. The same technology that threatens to tear us apart also empowers us to do something to prevent just that. I take some solace in how good humanity's track record has been–despite atrocities along the way–but I also fear that we've reached a breaking point from which we might potentially destroy our species or lose our souls. We need to work less on tech, more on ourselves.

Youtube is free...hence no "quality" or filters.
But Hey, the other side of the coin. These logans and such think they NEED at least a Gh5...more demand for those.
And they announced today  DJI Osmo Mobile 2 (and Ronin-S by the way) at 129$!!!!..grab an iphone, filmic pro and Moondoglab and off you go..
And most of you will be aware of  the swedish guy who from making shorts in his room straight to Hollywood features thanks to a youtube viral video... 
 

I think you, like me, and others on here have become our own worse enemy. It was simpler times years ago, the camera didn't make much difference because it was sort of crap to what the big boys had, and we just ignored the camera and went on to write, I would say more fun stuff, then we do now. Willing to try anything because it was fun to experiment, to create, and hell that is what a movie Is suppose to be, Creative.
Now that we have damn good cameras we spend 3/4 our money and energy on the camera, oh got to have the best camera thing, and I would argue less time being creative, having fun doing it. Getting the juice's going as they say.
The story is King, and damn if it ain't! This B&W thread on here proves you can take a pretty ho hum camera and make magic with it. I think most people that have the GH5 spends more time on the Forums, YouTube complaining about AF, Colors, HDR on and on then going out and shooting. Hell they probably accomplished more, and better output on their old GH4! How long can you keep doing tests and not use it for its intended use, a short, a Movie,  a Doc, on and on. Not 50 lens tests ,100 different LuTs.
I think we all need to spend less time on the camera and more writing a story, a story board, dreaming what the outcome will look like, not how great the camera will make it look. There are lots of shorts, movies I never took my eyes off the actors, that I paid Zero attention how the Camera performed. That was the least of my thought used in the case of a great story.
I am not saying go buy a 50 dollar camera and lens, I am saying put what you got to good use, the use it was intended for, to project your thoughts out to the world, good or bad. Shoot, shoot shoot.

I think you, like me, and others on here have become our own worse enemy. It was simpler times years ago, the camera didn't make much difference because it was sort of crap to what the big boys had, and we just ignored the camera and went on to write, I would say more fun stuff, then we do now. Willing to try anything because it was fun to experiment, to create, and hell that is what a movie Is suppose to be, Creative.
Now that we have damn good cameras we spend 3/4 our money and energy on the camera, oh got to have the best camera thing, and I would argue less time being creative, having fun doing it. Getting the juice's going as they say.
The story is King, and damn if it ain't! This B&W thread on here proves you can take a pretty ho hum camera and make magic with it. I think most people that have the GH5 spends more time on the Forums, YouTube complaining about AF, Colors, HDR on and on then going out and shooting. Hell they probably accomplished more, and better output on their old GH4! How long can you keep doing tests and not use it for its intended use, a short, a Movie,  a Doc, on and on. Not 50 lens tests ,100 different LuTs.
I think we all need to spend less time on the camera and more writing a story, a story board, dreaming what the outcome will look like, not how great the camera will make it look. There are lots of shorts, movies I never took my eyes off the actors, that I paid Zero attention how the Camera performed. That was the least of my thought used in the case of a great story.
I am not saying go buy a 50 dollar camera and lens, I am saying put what you got to good use, the use it was intended for, to project your thoughts out to the world, good or bad. Shoot, shoot shoot.

Hey cats! It´s been a maginificient bunch of years, maybe eight or so, of the wizardry of DSLR/M image crafters and creative cinematography as part of true and truthful arts, of what is accomplishable through an image rather than by putting and shoving and screaming and FXing and bloatingly slomoing into peoples faces.
Good enough until the end of times and plenty to research for, to learn from and to build new filmic work upon. One of the search terms is.. GH2. That´s what the magic of the GH2 and a Canon 550D still is. Past of tech but nevertheless a  basement for an aesthetic future. In spirit and magic GH5 has not become a successor of the GH2 yet. Eoshd search and Vimeo search are our friends. Research time, creation time! Thanks to the magic of the GH2 I throw some magical digitized S16 Kodak stock into the mix for viewing pleasure. Wish you all a beautiful Sunday evening!
 

So the GH5 is a great camera and is capable of great imagery etc etc etc but it is usd $2000 for body only while the GH2 was $900 for body only.  I’d say the BMPCC is the modern successor of the GH2 for beginning filmmakers not the GH5. 
With the GH5A all the features are nice of course but they have the risk of encouraging ‘lazy’ shooting such as relying on IBIS and shooting handheld when a locked off shot might be better or using slow-mo for everything rather than learning how to use 24p to the max before adding in other frame rates. If you’re a seasoned pro then the features are great to speed up your production but for the ‘artistic’ non camera tech filmmaker, I’m not sure. In some ways the GH2 is like shooting stills with one focal length for a year and perhaps encouraged mastering the basics before being flooded by all the bells and whistles.

I think you, like me, and others on here have become our own worse enemy. It was simpler times years ago, the camera didn't make much difference because it was sort of crap to what the big boys had, and we just ignored the camera and went on to write, I would say more fun stuff, then we do now. Willing to try anything because it was fun to experiment, to create, and hell that is what a movie Is suppose to be, Creative.
Now that we have damn good cameras we spend 3/4 our money and energy on the camera, oh got to have the best camera thing, and I would argue less time being creative, having fun doing it. Getting the juice's going as they say.
The story is King, and damn if it ain't! This B&W thread on here proves you can take a pretty ho hum camera and make magic with it. I think most people that have the GH5 spends more time on the Forums, YouTube complaining about AF, Colors, HDR on and on then going out and shooting. Hell they probably accomplished more, and better output on their old GH4! How long can you keep doing tests and not use it for its intended use, a short, a Movie,  a Doc, on and on. Not 50 lens tests ,100 different LuTs.
I think we all need to spend less time on the camera and more writing a story, a story board, dreaming what the outcome will look like, not how great the camera will make it look. There are lots of shorts, movies I never took my eyes off the actors, that I paid Zero attention how the Camera performed. That was the least of my thought used in the case of a great story.
I am not saying go buy a 50 dollar camera and lens, I am saying put what you got to good use, the use it was intended for, to project your thoughts out to the world, good or bad. Shoot, shoot shoot.

The root problem, behind Andrew's article, is not YouTube's pushing of crass video content.  Forty years ago TV and comics were similar scapegoats.  Stepping back even further, none of the issues confronting us were alien to Dostoevsky,  Henrik Ibsen, or even the author of the first modern novel, Miguel de Cervantes.  How do we feel good, right, happy in a society that seems to have abandoned, or cannot adopt, to the right ideals?  Are current affairs fundamentally different from the problems dealt with in the Old Testament, say?    
Societies always expand and contract. We're in an expansion phase.  From the turn of the last century until WWII, the world was als in an expansion phase, technologies and populations increasing faster than they could be absorbed.  I would call WWII "the great contraction".
So Andrew starts EOSHD.  It's in the beginning of a period where people can shoot near film/TV quality on consumer cameras.  It's a heady time!  As I've said here many times, one could barely afford to shoot 3 minutes of super-8 film in the 1970s-early 80s, when I was young.   Okay, so I read about the 50D  shooting RAW using Magic Lantern, buy Andrew's guide, and I finally feel I can realize my youthful dreams of making  a movie!
My only problem is I either never had anything to say in the first place, or it's not a good fit for my mode of thinking (which is very analytical, as if you didn't know  )  Anyway, a burst of joy followed by depression. 
I imagine Andrew also had some dreams, or projects he wanted to do.  Perhaps just as he got all the technology sorted out through EOSHD he looks at where his content might go and his head explodes.   Or maybe he just sees all his advice misused and mangled.  In any case, the ability to make professional video with a DSLR used to be something special.  When I shot my 50D with ML it was a cool feeling.  Now anyone can by a BMPCC and get that result easily.  As for nice sharp video, the GH5 can match any broadcast TV camera, if I'm understanding the experience of many here.
So where does EOSHD go with the world full of good cameras that don't need hacks and a completely glutted market for content?  
I feel there is as much a need for EOSHD as there ever was.  Although, as you know, I am very cynical of HDR and LOG and other misunderstood techniques, the problems they try to solve are real and are a continual struggle.  As nice as the GH5 is, it doesn't compete with the cameras used to shoot modern movies.  So the need to optimization remains for the serious cash-strapped filmmaker.  
Last night I woke up at 5 and figured I'd look at Instagram for a minute.   It auto-played someone's crappy iPhone video (which I feel is extremely rude) waking up my wife.  I thought, "Andrew is right, f them all!  I'm going to delete Instagram!"   I then calmed down.  I'm working on a new video about how RAW sensors work and their relation to LOG video.  Yes, it's a stupid subject.  Yes few people are interested in it.  But I have a better chance of improving the understanding of myself, and a few people, than changing what people want to watch, or in the case of YouTube, shove down their throats.
I have to contract back to the somewhat-feeling-isolated guy with dreams of being respected in my head.  There's a lot to the saying, 'ignorance is bliss'.
 
 
 

Well, everything is based on a general misconception about society. I would not want to sound elitist, but hey...
Most of the people are stupid (or dumb, you pick it up) and they rather choose Gangnam Style over Macbeth. 
Nothing new over here, seeing people butchered alive required huge coliseums across the roman empire. Theatres were rather small, as they are today confronted to football stadiums. That's why Vimeo will always have less views and viewers than Youtube.
"Eh, sexy lady
Op, op, op, op"
 

Probably the last day of March!

I've been a production partner on Youtube since 2006, back when they had human content curators and we had to sign paper docs to be part of the program. The problem is that an algorithm can't see "quality" it can only see data. Since Google is all about the algorithms they are unequipped to help viewers find the quality content that is/was being posted to their service. The human curators were great. I could tell them that we had an exclusive review of a new car (one that might not even have a lot of search requests yet) and they would put it front and center. Most of our videos trended on the platform as a result. Once they were replaced, that ended and I stopped seeing YouTube as a reliable platform for distribution. Ideally, YouTube would incorporate a mix of content; Some, algorithm based, with section editors that could curate key sections: automotive, film, drama, comedy, etc. However, that is directly against the Google-way, which is unfortunate. 

Wow so much anger Joachim!
If only you were as angry about "everything feeds us shit and always has"... or "money makes the world go round"...
Because normal human response to this is to be angry and try and change things.
Maybe you are not human?
A Russian troll perhaps?!
Anyway it sounds like your opinion there is pretty similar to what I said in the article if you think YouTube is feeding us shit and always has.
By the way...
It's not a "trivial rant".
The only thing trivial here is your response.
A resigned *sigh* rather than a call for quality content.
This is a very simple problem to fix. YouTube takes editorial responsibility, ditches the algorithm driven trending home page and ranking system, actively promotes good quality stuff so that people sees it, starts investing in content like all other TV networks do. YouTube is not just a platform for hosting videos, it is a mass media channel.
Time they took responsibility.
And if you don't understand that Joachim or what's at stake... why the fuck are you a filmmaker? You may as well not be.