Cary Knoop

I suspect the wide short is a different model/brand camera.  The levels do not match.
 

According to @Andrew Reid, it cures not only the common cold, but death itself! ...bringing those zombies back to life! I have to say it works rather well for me! Sometimes, the red channel seems to overshoot a little, but Film Convert brings everything back to normalcy.

LUTs are great for things like converting Log to Rec207 or Rec2020 but I am not a fan at all of LUTs to color grade so I am definitely biased. 
But nevertheless some of the claims that are made about LUTs on some sites border absurdity, I am surprised some don't claim a LUT can cure the common cold!
 

You'll unlikely find no lights setup in a shot into a blockbuster production, as for instance. An events shooter living from his/her craft is as much professional as an acclaimed Academy award filmmaker. Different levels, obviously.

Right!
In fact it takes a lot of powerful lights to make a shot look dark!
 
 

Look, I'm all about M4/3, but to be honest, the actual sensor performance of just about any APS-C camera kicks M4/3 butt. Butt, I mean, but, it's more than sensor performance alone. Also, performance compared on sites like that are mostly important in terms of stills, perhaps not as much in terms of video, so, that's less of an advantage, but still a significant one. If you can make the rolling shutter work and never had issues with overheating, I'd even say: stick with it, good on you! You get a clear advantage in noise performance, detail and dynamic range (in some capacity) too. G80 wouldn't be a step up in quality. What you would get is a cheaper system. The possibility to mount much smaller lenses, to have better ergonomics (imho), front-facing w/ full touchscreen implementation et cetera. It's more about those things... the sensor is not on the same playing field though. But it's certainly managable going with M4/3, especially if you don't need the lowlight performance per se. I was looking forward so much to the A6300, but I'm glad I didn't get one. Because the rolling shutter and overheating (just knowing it could at any given time... I know it would probably work fine for months on end, but when push comes to shove would let me down at the most inconvenient time) would supersuck. I don't like the ergonomics and design of the camera. No front-facing touchscreen. Colors not that great off the bat. No real plans for the APS-C line-up lenses. Et cetera. Just my 2cts of course, but I choose not to deal with those things. But anyways... so you've had the GX85 right? Then you roughly know what the system is capable of. The G80/85 is a different league as a camera. In sensor performance, not so much. If you're happier with the A6300 than the GX85, I don't see why a G80 would suddenly triumph.
 
On a unrelated note, *points towards the topic title*... anyone bought an E-M1 Mark II yet? Just curious. It's been out in countries like Germany and The Netherlands for a while now. Also started to see changes in the stock status of several local stores, yet for the time body only is tricky to get a hold of. I guess best would be to sell my E-M1 as kit with the 12-40mm and buy the E-M1 Mark II with all new 12-40mm in kit. Shouldn't make any difference below the line. Guess everyone is waiting for the GH5 announcement on the 4th (full specs + pricing + release date (spring/March/April))... but nobody was like: ooh, I have to get it anyways (not even you fuzzynormal)? I'm actually tempted to maybe pick one up on friday. I love the E-M1 for stills over any other camera. Doesn't mean I'm not interested to see what the GH5 is about... but it's not really the same thing, now, is it? Currently I have all kinds of cameras, so, I'd just be replacing models for their respective successors an keep using each for the areas they excell.

The Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 is a great lens.  Of course the 42.5mm f/1.2 is one of the best MFT but it comes with a large price tag!

I recommend a PC desktop for video editing. 

The Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 is a great lens.  Of course the 42.5mm f/1.2 is one of the best MFT but it comes with a large price tag!

With bad lighting even a million dollar camera will not look good. 
A good looking video needs good lighting, always!
It used to be different but lighting is now easy, cheap, safe and of good quality.
And entry level LED panel starts under $100. 
 

No.
 

Many of us prefer that form factor and modularity -- in fact being a documentary filmmaker, I don't need any rigs at all, just use it on monopod or gimbal most of the time. Being inconspicuous often is the only chance to get your shots and it's always a convenience; plus size matters a lot for a single/small crew production, especially when shooting abroad.
Sure, there's no built in NDs, decent audio preamps and useable AF that would improve its run and gun capabilities, but that's not really related to form factor (although it is to the size). Handling wise, it's as convenient as it gets. My previous camera was EX1 and I've never looked back since getting GH4 in 2014.
There are plenty of camcorder-type video cameras, why do you want every one of them be like that?

Wait hold on folks, I apologize I am totally wrong on the bit size increase!
I just cleared up my brain fog!
Of course, while the information quadrupled the required space is only 10/8 more, a factor of 1.25!

 

Wait hold on folks, I apologize I am totally wrong on the bit size increase!
I just cleared up my brain fog!
Of course, while the information quadrupled the required space is only 10/8 more, a factor of 1.25!

 

You can actually count to 10 bits (or much higher, even) with just your 10 fingers !   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_binary

Computer's binary ways can be confusing -- for a moment there I almost started to doubt myself
I also hope for a bitrate of 200-250mbps if it's x264 as well, should cover all the extra data and still be a decent increase in overall detail and motion smoothness over the GH4.

Wait hold on folks, I apologize I am totally wrong on the bit size increase!
I just cleared up my brain fog!
Of course, while the information quadrupled the required space is only 10/8 more, a factor of 1.25!

 

Maybe I am wrong in absolute data increase cause I don't really know what exactly goes into describing each pixel but certainly 10 bit value doesn't take four times as much storage as 8 bit value. Computer memory is measured in bytes, each consisting of 8 bits. You can read the whole value as well as specific bits, so to store a 10 bit value, you'd use a byte plus 2 bits of another byte, still having 6 bits of that byte available for the next value (of course, you have to keep track of where your bits are as there is no address in the computer memory for separate bits, only bytes). At most, if you just leave a full byte for the extra 2 bits, it will still take only the double of amount.

?????
10 bit require 2 bit more storage space then 8 bit and it can encode a value range that is 4 times the size.

I beg to differ. 
If we take a standard 8 bit 4:2:0 video and discard for the sake of simplicity video levels, transparencies and gamut constraints we have:
3 x 2^8 bits of information per pixel subsampled to 4:2:0 which is: 384 values per pixel
For 10 bit video this becomes:
3 x 2^10 bits of information per pixel subsampled to 4:2:2 which is: 2048 values per pixel
That's an effective factor of 5!
I would not call that fractional, it is twice as much as 4:2:0 in an absolute sense and it is 25% more with respect to the 4:4:4 baseline.
You seem to grossly underestimate the sparsity of 4:2:0

Your document talks about saving bandwidth when the destination is going to be 8 bit.
Now do encoders need 5 times as much bandwidth for 10 bit 4:2:2? 
Of course not, the more data the more effective the compression (one would hope) but I think it should be somewhere between 250 to 300 Mbps for H.264 and about half of that if it is H.265.
 

It better be!
10 bit 4:2:2 is 8 times as much information that needs to be encoded!
 

Yachts: Too expensive!
Jets: Too fancy!
Jetpack: Too dangerous!
Trip to Mars: Too exotic!
Panasonic GH5: Just right!
 

I completely disagree and I am sure many others with me.
 

Shot on the GX85
 

Tito, this is great work!
Have you thought about putting all your blogs in a book form for instance on Blurb?