Frank5

On my GH5, I noticed a strange behavior with Canon and Sigma lenses with the Speedbooster (but not with native Panasonic lenses without adapter):
With the exact same aperture and shutter speed settings, the autofocus of the camera is much faster in manual photo mode than in video mode. In some cases, in video mode the focus hunts and the lense won't even focus. When I switch to manual photo and press the shutter halfway, lenses focus immediately.
The "synchro scan hack" has no effect. I'm running the latest GH5 firmware. Does anybody have a remedy? Many thanks!

Well you just discovered that autofocus in pics is better than in video. The remedy is to get a camera in which they're both on a similar level. 

Many thanks for chiming in and the fantastic feedback!

@jonpais Yes, that's exactly what I'll do. I'll adapt the 18-35mm for now. There seems to be no clear replacement on MFT at the moment. I would be surprised if no manufacturer, maybe even Sigma, came up with such a lens for MFT in the near future.

@GreekBeast That was my point exactly! Your second older video, was more to my liking, didn't have a constant movement of its shots, that caused me nervousness. I didn't like the photos zoomed in (you should have shot 4K, and make the zoom ins, or zoom in from 100% to 120%, even this small-ish difference is enough to make your point and does not harm your image, hell, sometimes I do 100-105% zoom in and is enough to make my statement).
Ibis is a huge trap, EVERYONE I know have fallen into. My advice is, do not forget your other stabilized methods. A TRIPOD SHOT IS A SHOT USING A CAMERA ON A TRIPOD!
Nicosia, yes, but I traveled a little bit, I had many friends in Cyprus from Uni in UK. I leave in Athens by the way (a Greek, but not a beast!).
@Frank5I will add again the same lens I did before, because I believe 2 times, that is the best lens for the job!
Olympus 12-100 4f!!
The separation when you shoot wide open, and above 50mm, is tremendous. The ability to have hard stops on your 2 focus extreme is unparalleled and very useful on the field, the quality in most focal lengths is outstanding, MSC ("Movie & Still Compatible") focusing system, minimum focusing distance at 0.15m (0.49ft)!!! with x0.6 magnification, real 5 stop image stabilization, fully splashproof/dustproof/freezerproof and so small and light!
Sorry to say, but the new Pannasonic 12-60  handles like a toy in front of this, is 2.8 only on its wide end, and goes to 60mm, great little lens, good offer, but the Olympus is screaming business!
If you do not really care about versatility, just buy one of the primes the people mentioned above. No need for a zoom on an interview situation really..

Almost the same could be said about Fuji's new cine zooms. 
 

Cheap though compared to the competition! 

Physics says..... there is no difference. 
(assuming all other factors are held constantly in proportion)

This , I suppose, can't be enough stressed. Two 4k focal length possibilities. There's also and third for HD, multiplication is x2.7 and with GH5 we can shoot with All-I amazing 200Mb HD codec - if final delivery format is HD, and if you can go under 800 ISO value, with one fast prime you indeed have some sort of zoom. For example, with Voigtlander 17.5 there are 17.5/25/47.25 = 35/50/95mm full frame equivalent options for HD, or 35/50 full frame eq. in 4k.
As everybody here knows - even in work circumstances, shooting is mostly some sort of loving process. If you love your lens(es), you'll find a way to make the best out of it. So, I dare to quote here Little Prince as shooting guru - “It's the time you spent on your rose that makes your rose so important..."
(Saying that, just to add - shooting with m43 electronically controlled lenses, for getting mellower cine-image it is usually "the-must" usage of some a-la-mist filter for taming oversharply contrast. From my experience - although I didn't try last Oly pro f1.2 primes - just two of them could be left without filter cloth - one of two is Olympus 75mm on Panasonic, and I don't know why. It is not only that its true detail-discerning capability closely match that of, say, Canon's L 1.2, but also and in color rendition and grading flexibility...)

Absolutely. Also, the chances of dust and other stuff landing on the sensor is enormous, anywhere outside of a very small closed studio.
I saw this beautiful location for a film (we were on a reccee), and I usually change lenses all the time, and almost, inadvertently changed lenses here. Luckily I didn't, cause this is like a mini canyon, with sand and dust, and that would have been the end of the reccee.  

The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 is a unique lens, if that is what you want, get it!

But if you want lower weight / native lenses, then it means compromises. 

Here is one path I might take, a simple two lens kit:

1) a mid range zoom which is f4 (or f2.8), I use this when I need to R&G and don't need that super lowlight

2) Panasonic 25mm f1.7, for those times when I need that extra speed! (but lose the flexibility of a zoom)

Between those two lenses you could do a lot (for instance the zoom for daytime, the prime for night shoots!).

Same here. I have several primes but in interview situations have always relied on dialing in the focal length with the zoom. It's just so much easier, especially when you have space constraints in the field.

Here is a hotel I've shot with the Gh5 and the native 12-35 /2.8 ( first gen). It had a lot of ronin so if you shoot Run N Gun you might get a feel. 

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/12-100mm-f4-is-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

I think Olympus makes some seriously amazing lenses.
I would love to see Panasonic make some super fast zooms (f2.0 or faster). I see no reason why they shouldn't be developing super fast zooms. I love primes, but it's a nuisance changing lenses on the field. 
How about an f2 set (12-40mm and 35-110mm equivalent) and an f2.8 12-80mm equivalent. 

Posting a movie showing a comparison between EOSHD C-log created by Andrew Reid and original Canon C-log. Reid's C-log can be loaded into any Canon DSLR.
In shooting I used the C-log in the XC-15 and EOSHD C-log shot with the 80D. Both clips are hand graded, and they are graded with a LUT (C-log to Rec 709).
How similar do you think the results are?
 
https://vimeo.com/218753403

check Canon C100 and C300, they are the cine line with an APSC sensor, they record in 4k downscaling to 1080p, today a C100 mk1 cost less than a 5D mrk IV, the image is so cinematic and the low light is fantastic, not to mention the skintones which are the best by far from any camera in the same price range. By the way, you also have Canon C-log, which is a plus.

Congrats @Frank5 on getting the job!
I'm not sure I can add any value above what other people have said, but may I ask how the TV channel found/approached you?
Hope it goes really well.

Narcos drone shoots are made with a GH4 (read so in IMDB) and they look gorgeous. 

This is excellent feedback, many thanks to you all for the encouragement. It is obviously time to upgrade and I'm looking forward to shooting the new project on a rental C100ii or C300ii.

No. You said "If you are willing to pay Comcast $80 a month for a highly compressed crap picture who is an idiot in this scenario NBC or you?....Dude... $50 antenna and problem solved".
That is not an option for the majority of viewers today. It may not be an option for you in the future, as the FCC plans on auctioning off the hugely valuable TV spectrum to wireless companies. They can do this because only about 7% of US households use antennas for OTA TV reception: http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/cea-study-says-seven-percent-of-tv-households-use-antennas/220585
An indoor or tabletop antenna does not work for many users. Anyone interested in this can use the tools at http://www.antennaweb.org/ to examine their location and geography with respect to antenna type, size and compass heading required to receive local stations. You often cannot stick a gigantic (highly directional) antenna in your attic for several reasons: (1) Insufficient turning radius (2) Interference from metallic HVAC or insulation.
That said, a 4-bay or 8-bay UHF bow tie antenna can work well in an attic if (a) You have an attic (b) If all the stations you need are within a narrow compass heading range (c) All the stations are on UHF (some HD channels are VHF), and (d) There is no major interfering metallic ducting or foil insulation. I have a 4-bay UHF bow-tie antenna and mast-mounted preamp in my attic and it works fairly well, although all the stations I need are within a narrow azimuth range (hence no rotator required), and they are fairly close.
So many common factors often make it impractical to use an indoor or attic antenna. HOAs increasingly restrict outdoor antennas, however the 1996 FCC OTA reception rule says these can usually be challenged. Unfortunately most users are not aware of this: https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule
So hopefully you can see that people who pay Comcast $80 a month are not idiots, and the problem is often far more difficult than "Dude... $50 antenna and problem solved"
Besides being a professional documentary filmmaker, I have the highest class ham radio licence and have built many antennas by hand, including UHF, VHF and HF. I regularly teach classes on RF techniques, signals and modulation. I have installed many large TV antenna, rotator and low-noise mast-mounted preamp systems.
It's important to give the OP the right advice. The advice about "buy a C100 mk II" does not work for the OP, since that is not a permitted camera from the standpoint of his 100 megabit/sec criteria. Although unstated in this case, networks which levy such requirements also often require 10-bit 4:2:2, which the C100 Mark II also does not do internally. 
My main point was many networks have such little professionalism and commitment to quality they allow the distribution chains handling their licensed content to grossly degrade the image, while hypocritically demanding standards like 100 megabit/sec for submitted material. 
I wanted to ensure everyone knows some networks widely disregard this at will, as shown in the above links I posted. But this doesn't mean shooting on an EOS M1 or M2 is the best approach, since they just aren't optimal from either codec or operational standpoint.
If the OP literally must adhere to the delivery requirements (which likely include 100 megabit/sec and possibly 10-bit 4:2:2) he'll have to get a camera or combination of camera and recorder which support those. 
If transcoding is permissible then 4k 8-bit 4:2:0 can be converted to 1080p 10-bit 4:4:4: http://www.provideocoalition.com/can-4k-4-2-0-8-bit-become-1080p-4-4-4-10-bit-does-it-matter/ In that case he could probably use a GH4 which is a great camera if equipped with the right lenses and accessories.
If that is not permissible, then it will be very interesting to see how the networks react to the GH5, which apparently will hit every check box they have previously used to exclude "lesser" cameras. Will they raise the arbitrarily-enforced extreme delivery standards yet again? Or will they simply use approved and unapproved equipment lists and exclude the GH5 this way?

I don't think anyone is saying it's "unworthy." I just had my eos-m out yesterday and I still love the image it gives, but Frank has an opportunity to have his work televised and that network has specific camera guidelines, so in this instance, he would be out of his mind to stir the pot. 

I'm sure he'll be fine.  
As it happens, I too am shooting for a doc series for broadcast.  (wish I was directing and producing, but thats another story) I'll clarify and admit that I'm not shooting a capital "N" Network show, but it's airing on an affiliate.
Our process involves creating an immediate intimacy with our subjects in the field, so I've parsed down my gear to the smallest footprint I can muster.  I'm shooting hybrid cameras for this job simply because it's a non-threatening thing to have in the environment.  I'm a goofy guy in the room with a small stills camera, not an obtrusive film crew, you know?  
Plus, I like having a camera with in body stabilization.  These two priorities allow me to accomplish this particular storytelling easier than what would be more unwieldy with more "pro" gear.  
Unless I told someone what it was shot on, none would be the wiser.  I mean, I suppose I know a pro could determine that I'm missing a few stops of DR, and a pro might realize a thin 8-bit image may have been pushed a little too hard in post, but (pot stirring aside) it works fine.
As I say, it's all relative.  

The networks have power over distributors like Comcast -- they simply choose not to exercise that power because quality is not a priority. If Comcast decided to cut the bit rate to 200 kilobits/sec to free up bandwidth for local shopping channels, thereby reducing the main program to a pixelated slide show, they'd get a call from the networks very quickly, as advertisers would be irate when viewers bailed. 
Re "who is an idiot" for not having an OTA antenna, a diminishing fraction of users have antennas, down to 7% by some estimates. The 93% of those you call "idiots" often have no choice and cannot practically use antennas. Since 1996 the FCC's Over The Air Reception Devices Rule says many HOAs can be challenged regarding antenna prohibitions but most people are not aware of this and cannot afford the hassle anyway: https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule
Another issue with OTA TV is the value of the occupied RF spectrum is huge, and many other players want that spectral real estate. You may call those not using OTA "idiots" but when that last OTA spectral real estate is grabbed for other purposes, you'll find yourself in that category.
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/91163/fate-of-ota-tv-hangs-in-the-balance-in-2016
http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/its-big-tv-vs-big-telecom-over-broadcast-spectrum-1200329490/
Re "do a pro job...just get a loan and buy a C100 mk II", that camera only does 8-bit 4:2:0 internally -- at only 24 megabits/sec. It would be rejected out of hand by the criteria the OP mentioned. Of course you can hang an HDMI ProRes recorder off it to achieve greater bit depth and chroma sub-sampling, but you didn't mention that.
Despite these limits the networks widely use the C100 and similar DSLRs (without any external recorders). The rules about bitrate and color depth are largely arbitrary and ignored whenever the networks so choose.
CNN using a variety of DSLRs and Canon C-series cameras: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/CNN-Moneyline-DSLR-Shoot/n-ffF2JW/
CNN using 5D Mark III: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/CNN-Using-5D-Mark-III/n-5JqGgB/
CNN field segment shot on C100: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/CNN-DSLR-Video/n-scsdxs/
ABC News shooting three-camera interview in front of White House: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/ABC-News-Using-DSLRs/n-BsScJC/
ABC Nightline using video DSLR: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/ABC-Nightline-Using-DSLR/n-HwH8hG/
2014 Super Bowl commercial for Gold's Gym shot using Canon DSLRs: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/DSLRs-shoot-Arnold-Golds-Gym/n-jzcNXR/
 
 

Yes Panasonic G7 and an Adapter for your Lens is all you need, bought mine New for $520 AUD, they're just the bargain of the century atm and has the same 4K image as the GH4 except no VLOG as yet. It's all you need.