Arikhan

@jonpais
@Axel
I will make a video with these facts within the next two weeks. There are some more facts to consider, I've written them down.
Example: During a concert in late August 2016, I made an interview with a band menber. It was a very bright, sunny day, the man stood (not sitting), the background was green (grass) and water. With standard AF it was impossible to get the artist in a constant focus with AF. The camera simply focused on background...Why? No clue...
What I did: Though it was very bright (full sun and about 36 degrees Celsius, I remember very well), I put a LED light on his face. The hunting was gone...
BTW: Distance to the subject (artist face and some of his chest) was about 65cm.
During another run&gun interview, i put the FZ1000 very close to the face of my interview partner (hand held with Sennheiser mic on hot shoe). The interview was outdoor...The camera hunted like crazy on background...I got a miserable picture quality, it was pure garbage...
The last "dramatic" situation was for me during an interview with a German bishop, I have loosed because I was alone and had to use AF...The camera hunted on background instead of focusing on bishops face (the guy simply didn't stand still - but this is the reality)...This was a desaster...
After that I was tired of mediocre "AF footage", I begun to "study" the different scenarios and modes. I just wanted to get as reliable results as possible, not depending on luck when using AF. After some time of shooting and study, I got some good results: Quite perfect in focus footage of persons using AF in different modes (persons moving forth and back from camera, interview situations when subjects move a little bit forth and back). So far I am very happy with the results of my FZ1000. As you know, being perfectly on focus is one of the most important factors of my filming / photography. When possible I always use MF with additional control monitor (even when using a big shoulder camera), but when it isn't possible (unespectable run&gun situations, one man band, etc.) I need a reliable AF.
@jonpais
You shoot very much portraiture (faces). For this the two described methods (1. Face detection and 2. Specified area focusing) are quite reliable, in my eyes in more than 90% of situations).
I will try to write down my experience and settings with the FZ1000 (but these settings are similar on all Pana consumer cameras) and will post some footage with excellent face tracking in low light. I will try being very precise in describing the situations, I used the different modes....
BTW: In cases with more than one face, it begins to get hard - because the camera can NOT know which of the faces you want to keep in focus (assuming you have Face1 about 1,5m, Face2 about 2,5m and Face3 about 4m far away from camera - subjects spread all over your field of view)...
Please consider that I am not a experienced reviewer at all. I can only debate on practical facts I have experienced a lot of times.

@Axel
I tested the Pana AF modes intensively (last time two weeks ago) with the FZ1000. The more you test different modes and scenarios, the more usable it will be for shooters needing a reliable AF in combination with MF. I compared it with the very good AF of the NX1. (Personally I consider Canons DPAF to be number one, some Sony cameras numjber two, NX1 and X-T2 number 3)
The test: FZ1000 + NX1 both set on face recognition, subject walking forth camera, cameraman walking back in round about 1,2m distance to subject. Both cameras with F2.8. Results were absolutely comparable, Pana with no wobbling or hunting. The subject did a moderate walk (not slow, not fast)...I wouldn't have expected this...
With "multi area" (eg subject turns face away from camera), the Pana is hunting, oftenly searching for more contrasty structures (background). In these cases (intensively tested too), it is very useful to determine a flexible AF area - the extent of the AF area can be extended - which can be moved in every direction and place you want. Using this method, focus never hunts (in static situations), even if background is much more contrasty than the subject: You just have to keep your subject within the predetermined focusing area.
There are many complaints on the pana AF hunting (hunting for more contrast, "wobbling" etc. in AF) but I think, users should test more the different modes and adapt this to their preferences...
I don't know  (I never hold the GH5 in my hands) but to be honest, I don't expect an AF similar to the big "AF-Gorillas" (Canon, Sony, Samsung and Fuji as descripted above), but I find the Pana AF usable. I used it in quite "impossible" situations and in the dark (a night concert on a stage in Romania) and - despite the 1" sensor and crop - it did very well at long zoom (about F4). It tracked faces like hell, I was very happy - i never would expect it but this showed me how important it is to extensively test for knowing how to handle camera strengths and limitations...

@Axel
I tested the Pana AF modes intensively (last time two weeks ago) with the FZ1000. The more you test different modes and scenarios, the more usable it will be for shooters needing a reliable AF in combination with MF. I compared it with the very good AF of the NX1. (Personally I consider Canons DPAF to be number one, some Sony cameras numjber two, NX1 and X-T2 number 3)
The test: FZ1000 + NX1 both set on face recognition, subject walking forth camera, cameraman walking back in round about 1,2m distance to subject. Both cameras with F2.8. Results were absolutely comparable, Pana with no wobbling or hunting. The subject did a moderate walk (not slow, not fast)...I wouldn't have expected this...
With "multi area" (eg subject turns face away from camera), the Pana is hunting, oftenly searching for more contrasty structures (background). In these cases (intensively tested too), it is very useful to determine a flexible AF area - the extent of the AF area can be extended - which can be moved in every direction and place you want. Using this method, focus never hunts (in static situations), even if background is much more contrasty than the subject: You just have to keep your subject within the predetermined focusing area.
There are many complaints on the pana AF hunting (hunting for more contrast, "wobbling" etc. in AF) but I think, users should test more the different modes and adapt this to their preferences...
I don't know  (I never hold the GH5 in my hands) but to be honest, I don't expect an AF similar to the big "AF-Gorillas" (Canon, Sony, Samsung and Fuji as descripted above), but I find the Pana AF usable. I used it in quite "impossible" situations and in the dark (a night concert on a stage in Romania) and - despite the 1" sensor and crop - it did very well at long zoom (about F4). It tracked faces like hell, I was very happy - i never would expect it but this showed me how important it is to extensively test for knowing how to handle camera strengths and limitations...

@Axel
I tested the Pana AF modes intensively (last time two weeks ago) with the FZ1000. The more you test different modes and scenarios, the more usable it will be for shooters needing a reliable AF in combination with MF. I compared it with the very good AF of the NX1. (Personally I consider Canons DPAF to be number one, some Sony cameras numjber two, NX1 and X-T2 number 3)
The test: FZ1000 + NX1 both set on face recognition, subject walking forth camera, cameraman walking back in round about 1,2m distance to subject. Both cameras with F2.8. Results were absolutely comparable, Pana with no wobbling or hunting. The subject did a moderate walk (not slow, not fast)...I wouldn't have expected this...
With "multi area" (eg subject turns face away from camera), the Pana is hunting, oftenly searching for more contrasty structures (background). In these cases (intensively tested too), it is very useful to determine a flexible AF area - the extent of the AF area can be extended - which can be moved in every direction and place you want. Using this method, focus never hunts (in static situations), even if background is much more contrasty than the subject: You just have to keep your subject within the predetermined focusing area.
There are many complaints on the pana AF hunting (hunting for more contrast, "wobbling" etc. in AF) but I think, users should test more the different modes and adapt this to their preferences...
I don't know  (I never hold the GH5 in my hands) but to be honest, I don't expect an AF similar to the big "AF-Gorillas" (Canon, Sony, Samsung and Fuji as descripted above), but I find the Pana AF usable. I used it in quite "impossible" situations and in the dark (a night concert on a stage in Romania) and - despite the 1" sensor and crop - it did very well at long zoom (about F4). It tracked faces like hell, I was very happy - i never would expect it but this showed me how important it is to extensively test for knowing how to handle camera strengths and limitations...

I have used it a bit.
1. Yes
2. Metabones work great.
3. Yes.
4. Its ok imo.
5. On par I guess or the NX1 might be a tad better.
Here is IS and AF with canon glass.
This is all hand-held with a Canon 35mm IS.
 

@joema
Because turning down contrast, sharpness & co. in a higher end camera makes it completely impossible to distinguish it's native footage from 720p coffee machines. Just try it the other way around...just deliver footage OOC out a 5d x (without ML) and let us compare between this footage and (let's say) a GH4 1080p. Every bet, that it can be distinguished....
1080p is 1080p and there is not only "colour science". The Canon colour science is just ONE criterion where Canon excels - while it's failing in many other ones (measured at today's requirements and offers of competition).
Look, the BMPCC delivers phantastic footage OOC and is NOT known for "oversharpened footage" OOC. And this little camera at about 1.000 EUR of a small company blows a "legendary" camera like the 5d iii in 1080p out of the water and competes with current "resolution kings" --> take a look...
Before beginning with my films (during the last year, mostly political documentaries and interviews) I made a small survey by comparing OOC footage of the 5D iii with footage of the FZ1000 (!) - native 1080p. You think it's an inappropriate comparison? Nope...After asking about 50 "normal Joes", there were only 6 (!!!) who prefered the 5d iii footage. All other people told me to prefer the "clear sharp footage, realistic colours, contrasts, etc., etc." of the FZ1000. It seems the 5d iii is a "nostalgic filmmaker darling" without much detention of nowadays audience...
There are out here many guys wanting the camera manufacturers to hear on filmmakers...Why do filmmakers not hear on their audience?
In this forum there is much talk on DR, 4K, 8K and current and future standards like HDR 10 and Dolby Vision...On the one side...on the other side, some shooters seem to glorify 720p footage. My standing is quite in the middle - I would just be very happy with a "real 1080p" and some other useful features out of a Canon DSLR. Have you ever took a look to 5d IV and 1DX ii 1080p? It's much worse than on any current 500-800 Euro Pana hobbyist camera...Is this horrible and highly overpriced lack of 1080p quality the future of DSLR film making? 

@Inazuma
Handling, ergonomics and shooting experience are at the end of the day matters of personal taste, preferences and experience. The shooter has just to be okay with his camera and its limitations and flaws. As long as a filmer and his audience are satisfied with IQ of a camera, everything is going to be alright....

@Inazuma
Handling, ergonomics and shooting experience are at the end of the day matters of personal taste, preferences and experience. The shooter has just to be okay with his camera and its limitations and flaws. As long as a filmer and his audience are satisfied with IQ of a camera, everything is going to be alright....

@Inazuma
Handling, ergonomics and shooting experience are at the end of the day matters of personal taste, preferences and experience. The shooter has just to be okay with his camera and its limitations and flaws. As long as a filmer and his audience are satisfied with IQ of a camera, everything is going to be alright....

@Marco Tecno
Exactly. But as it lacks an individual image texture (tack sharp, puristic look), so people speak about "over sharp". When Canon declares their 720p mushy pixel soup as 1080p, C-Fanboys speak affectionately about "warmish and smooth outlines"...Resolution is nothing but resolution. 4K should be real 4K. After watching some newest RED footage on an expensive monitor in London, I would say, NX1 footage seems "mushy" compared with the RED one...As always, it's a matter of perspective...Tack sharp footage can be smoothed in post...BUT mushy, baked in pixel soap can NOT be sharpened as much...

@Marco Tecno
Exactly. But as it lacks an individual image texture (tack sharp, puristic look), so people speak about "over sharp". When Canon declares their 720p mushy pixel soup as 1080p, C-Fanboys speak affectionately about "warmish and smooth outlines"...Resolution is nothing but resolution. 4K should be real 4K. After watching some newest RED footage on an expensive monitor in London, I would say, NX1 footage seems "mushy" compared with the RED one...As always, it's a matter of perspective...Tack sharp footage can be smoothed in post...BUT mushy, baked in pixel soap can NOT be sharpened as much...

@Marco Tecno
Exactly. But as it lacks an individual image texture (tack sharp, puristic look), so people speak about "over sharp". When Canon declares their 720p mushy pixel soup as 1080p, C-Fanboys speak affectionately about "warmish and smooth outlines"...Resolution is nothing but resolution. 4K should be real 4K. After watching some newest RED footage on an expensive monitor in London, I would say, NX1 footage seems "mushy" compared with the RED one...As always, it's a matter of perspective...Tack sharp footage can be smoothed in post...BUT mushy, baked in pixel soap can NOT be sharpened as much...

I forgot something very important he adviced me too..."When filming motion, try to move!" he told me (moving the camera). If the subject walks away from the camera, try to move in same direction or change the bearing and move towards the subject. This would affect considerably the motion cadence feeling of the audience in lack of a "epic cinema camera" with a "native motion cadence feeling".
I tried this and sometimes it works...I think, this could work even better with a much more experienced camera man than me behind the lens...
@marcuswolschon
You are completely right...what he meant was "normal guys" will never get the experience. He (and many other pro colorists) work minimum 10 hours per day on coloring / grading / correcting. Because of this, they can handle many color profiles of different cameras in a kind of way that small film production companies or one man bands will never get...Even when experimenting the next years...It's a big difference between coloring 50 hours a week or 5...When looking at pro work, 99 percent of web films appear like a wannabe "coloring joke"...
There is a difference between a pro surgeon working 10 hours a day professionally in his job and a butcher, doing sometimes things he calls "surgery". It's not surgery, it's massacre... ;-)

@Axel
I visited a pro colorist in London during last fall break to get some insights in the industry and methodology. I was really fascinated but the quintessence was: There is no good "wannabe colorist"...If one doesn't have thousands of hours of experience in coloring and with different cameras, don't color the footage. It will end in a massacre...
Your statement on Pana footage is quite interesting, because I've discussed this on some examples in London. The guy likes the GH4 colors and said "many GH4 shots need  appropriate lighting when shooting and some texture in post. He knew about the Noam Kroll settings and told me, they are quite nice and usable out of the box. In his eyes (depending on lighting or contrast), they are better than V-Log because of much easier to work with when expecting pleasant, balanced results in colours."
He told me, OK the GH4 is far away from a pro Cine camera, but it a phantastic allround camera. He doesn't see as many problems with colour grade, but more with a "too perfect" texture of images and the complete lack of motion cadence. When talking about motion cadence, he adviced me - independently from which DSLR I use - to experiment  with different rates of fps. With some cameras, this could work quite well to get a kind of "motion cadence" in the shots.
@jonpais
Motion cadence: That's probably one of the reasons, your Pana shots look so "filmic" - there is not much motion in your examples and that's why we (the audience) percieve the footage as filmic...it could be the feeling of a great motion cadence in these "chilled" shots...They look somehow like "slow motion"...
Another reason could be the asiatic skin tones matching much more better the Pana colour science than shots with "pale europeans"....

I forgot something very important he adviced me too..."When filming motion, try to move!" he told me (moving the camera). If the subject walks away from the camera, try to move in same direction or change the bearing and move towards the subject. This would affect considerably the motion cadence feeling of the audience in lack of a "epic cinema camera" with a "native motion cadence feeling".
I tried this and sometimes it works...I think, this could work even better with a much more experienced camera man than me behind the lens...
@marcuswolschon
You are completely right...what he meant was "normal guys" will never get the experience. He (and many other pro colorists) work minimum 10 hours per day on coloring / grading / correcting. Because of this, they can handle many color profiles of different cameras in a kind of way that small film production companies or one man bands will never get...Even when experimenting the next years...It's a big difference between coloring 50 hours a week or 5...When looking at pro work, 99 percent of web films appear like a wannabe "coloring joke"...
There is a difference between a pro surgeon working 10 hours a day professionally in his job and a butcher, doing sometimes things he calls "surgery". It's not surgery, it's massacre... ;-)

@Axel
I visited a pro colorist in London during last fall break to get some insights in the industry and methodology. I was really fascinated but the quintessence was: There is no good "wannabe colorist"...If one doesn't have thousands of hours of experience in coloring and with different cameras, don't color the footage. It will end in a massacre...
Your statement on Pana footage is quite interesting, because I've discussed this on some examples in London. The guy likes the GH4 colors and said "many GH4 shots need  appropriate lighting when shooting and some texture in post. He knew about the Noam Kroll settings and told me, they are quite nice and usable out of the box. In his eyes (depending on lighting or contrast), they are better than V-Log because of much easier to work with when expecting pleasant, balanced results in colours."
He told me, OK the GH4 is far away from a pro Cine camera, but it a phantastic allround camera. He doesn't see as many problems with colour grade, but more with a "too perfect" texture of images and the complete lack of motion cadence. When talking about motion cadence, he adviced me - independently from which DSLR I use - to experiment  with different rates of fps. With some cameras, this could work quite well to get a kind of "motion cadence" in the shots.
@jonpais
Motion cadence: That's probably one of the reasons, your Pana shots look so "filmic" - there is not much motion in your examples and that's why we (the audience) percieve the footage as filmic...it could be the feeling of a great motion cadence in these "chilled" shots...They look somehow like "slow motion"...
Another reason could be the asiatic skin tones matching much more better the Pana colour science than shots with "pale europeans"....

@Marco Tecno
Exactly. But as it lacks an individual image texture (tack sharp, puristic look), so people speak about "over sharp". When Canon declares their 720p mushy pixel soup as 1080p, C-Fanboys speak affectionately about "warmish and smooth outlines"...Resolution is nothing but resolution. 4K should be real 4K. After watching some newest RED footage on an expensive monitor in London, I would say, NX1 footage seems "mushy" compared with the RED one...As always, it's a matter of perspective...Tack sharp footage can be smoothed in post...BUT mushy, baked in pixel soap can NOT be sharpened as much...

@Marco Tecno
Exactly. But as it lacks an individual image texture (tack sharp, puristic look), so people speak about "over sharp". When Canon declares their 720p mushy pixel soup as 1080p, C-Fanboys speak affectionately about "warmish and smooth outlines"...Resolution is nothing but resolution. 4K should be real 4K. After watching some newest RED footage on an expensive monitor in London, I would say, NX1 footage seems "mushy" compared with the RED one...As always, it's a matter of perspective...Tack sharp footage can be smoothed in post...BUT mushy, baked in pixel soap can NOT be sharpened as much...

@Axel
I visited a pro colorist in London during last fall break to get some insights in the industry and methodology. I was really fascinated but the quintessence was: There is no good "wannabe colorist"...If one doesn't have thousands of hours of experience in coloring and with different cameras, don't color the footage. It will end in a massacre...
Your statement on Pana footage is quite interesting, because I've discussed this on some examples in London. The guy likes the GH4 colors and said "many GH4 shots need  appropriate lighting when shooting and some texture in post. He knew about the Noam Kroll settings and told me, they are quite nice and usable out of the box. In his eyes (depending on lighting or contrast), they are better than V-Log because of much easier to work with when expecting pleasant, balanced results in colours."
He told me, OK the GH4 is far away from a pro Cine camera, but it a phantastic allround camera. He doesn't see as many problems with colour grade, but more with a "too perfect" texture of images and the complete lack of motion cadence. When talking about motion cadence, he adviced me - independently from which DSLR I use - to experiment  with different rates of fps. With some cameras, this could work quite well to get a kind of "motion cadence" in the shots.
@jonpais
Motion cadence: That's probably one of the reasons, your Pana shots look so "filmic" - there is not much motion in your examples and that's why we (the audience) percieve the footage as filmic...it could be the feeling of a great motion cadence in these "chilled" shots...They look somehow like "slow motion"...
Another reason could be the asiatic skin tones matching much more better the Pana colour science than shots with "pale europeans"....

@Axel
I visited a pro colorist in London during last fall break to get some insights in the industry and methodology. I was really fascinated but the quintessence was: There is no good "wannabe colorist"...If one doesn't have thousands of hours of experience in coloring and with different cameras, don't color the footage. It will end in a massacre...
Your statement on Pana footage is quite interesting, because I've discussed this on some examples in London. The guy likes the GH4 colors and said "many GH4 shots need  appropriate lighting when shooting and some texture in post. He knew about the Noam Kroll settings and told me, they are quite nice and usable out of the box. In his eyes (depending on lighting or contrast), they are better than V-Log because of much easier to work with when expecting pleasant, balanced results in colours."
He told me, OK the GH4 is far away from a pro Cine camera, but it a phantastic allround camera. He doesn't see as many problems with colour grade, but more with a "too perfect" texture of images and the complete lack of motion cadence. When talking about motion cadence, he adviced me - independently from which DSLR I use - to experiment  with different rates of fps. With some cameras, this could work quite well to get a kind of "motion cadence" in the shots.
@jonpais
Motion cadence: That's probably one of the reasons, your Pana shots look so "filmic" - there is not much motion in your examples and that's why we (the audience) percieve the footage as filmic...it could be the feeling of a great motion cadence in these "chilled" shots...They look somehow like "slow motion"...
Another reason could be the asiatic skin tones matching much more better the Pana colour science than shots with "pale europeans"....

@jonpais
Beautiful, really pleasing...It's not the first time I like your shots because a overall balanced coloring and feeling, though NOT graded at all. Your shots prove that using and tweaking native in camera settings according to a certain shooting scenario, could be sometimes much more better than colour vandalism  dilettantish/misunderstood colour grading...Less is more...

@jonpais
Beautiful, really pleasing...It's not the first time I like your shots because a overall balanced coloring and feeling, though NOT graded at all. Your shots prove that using and tweaking native in camera settings according to a certain shooting scenario, could be sometimes much more better than colour vandalism  dilettantish/misunderstood colour grading...Less is more...

Talking about colour science...and claiming Canon is a leader - there are some other opinions too...Three examples:
Example 1
I showed in my school 31 colleagues (aged between 17 and 19 years old) a portrait (2 stills) comparison between Canon and Nikon. Same subject, different colour sciences with original colours. 5 of them said they have no preference, 18 prefered the Nikon colours (in their eyes "more realistic") and only 8 prefered the "legendary" Canon skin tones...
I showed the same photos 13 aged people (between 55 and 81 years old) and 2 had no preference, 7 loving Nikon colours. Only 4 prefered the Canon colours.
Then I tested the same thing (same 2 stills) two weeks later with the same aged persons...And then 3 of them had no preference, 5 were Nikon fans and 5 liking the Canon colours. So, in my eyes, the quintessence is: Colours are absolutely a matter of taste, sometimes depending on a momentary mood of audience. The same person "loving" now Nikon colours, could prefer a week later Canon colours.
Example 2
Last summer I shot 2 weddings as second shooter (with a 5Dm iii) to get more experience in real world portrait, event and low light photography. The pro wedding photographer (first shooter) used a Nikon D3S and a D7100 as second camera. After taking a look to the Nikon photos, they (bride, groom and some friends) took a look at some of my photos (original Canon profile)...Most of them said skin tones were "too warmish" / "unrealistic".
Example 3
I showed 14 colleagues (17-19 years old) on a larger tablet one of the legendary "cinematic look" examples, hailed by thousands filmmaking enthusiasts. Only 1 loved the colour science, 3 gave a shrug and the other persons were downright shocked, asking if these were film sequences from the 70's. After telling them, that the footage was shot and edited 2009+, they asked, if the DOP was on steroids...some of them even saying, "the man is a miserable failure" needing to be fired...
I am aware of the fact that my experience might not be representative, but there is a bit of truth therein. Most average Joes (= "non digital imaging" freaks) don't even care about colour science, it's only a obsession for geeks, enthusiasts and some pixel peepers putting their nose 10cm close to a HR computer screen. Completely irrelevant for 99,9 percent of audience...

@noone the "noone" part was from Homer's the Odyssey. Second book of European history (after the Iliad)
What is wrong with what I said? It is plain english. I do use a7sII occasionaly for video, never for photos as there are much better photo options out there.
Don't be so brand defensive, I am completely brand agnostic, I just care for myself, not them corporates. Most of the people here are using multiple brands/systems or have used  many.
It is just a tool, and you are "noone" (same book! The story with the Cyclop!).