Ken Ross

Can we, in keeping with the thread title, keep this to information regarding the GH5? This is slowly but steadily evolving into a Sony thread.

Emanuel, I think at times people are looking for excuses to not buy a given piece of equipment. Others are trying to defend equipment they already own by over-exaggerating flaws of new entries. I see this all the time and not just with cameras. It's human nature.

Emanuel, I think at times people are looking for excuses to not buy a given piece of equipment. Others are trying to defend equipment they already own by over-exaggerating flaws of new entries. I see this all the time and not just with cameras. It's human nature.

Can we, in keeping with the thread title, keep this to information regarding the GH5? This is slowly but steadily evolving into a Sony thread.

Can we, in keeping with the thread title, keep this to information regarding the GH5? This is slowly but steadily evolving into a Sony thread.

Internet thread get derailed so that is norm?

Well AF on FS5 sucks and doesnt have IBIS  but I dont see many buyer like me see that as deal breaker lol, I dont see Sony fanboy denoucing FS5 or A7SII for crappy AF which is heavily bashed on GH5 atm.

Extreme low light is a great reason to pick Sony. For 98% of shooting, that advantage holds little allure for me. Thus, I continue to wonder what advantage Sony holds for that vast percentage of shooters that don't need crazy ISOs.

Emanuel, I think at times people are looking for excuses to not buy a given piece of equipment. Others are trying to defend equipment they already own by over-exaggerating flaws of new entries. I see this all the time and not just with cameras. It's human nature.

Most manufacturers look fine at 3200/6400 these days. Even in the evening or at night, I've never needed more. 
And personally, I find full frame overrated. Difficult to focus, and easily matched with a speed booster.

They problem as I see it as that the GH5, on a spec for spec basis, competes with the FS5/FS7. In order to compete in pure capabilities, Sony would have to canibalize their own high end cameras. Don't get me wrong, that sounds great, but I just don't think it's probable. Plus, on a pure reliability/ergonomics/ease of use level, none of Sony's mirrorless line holds a candle to Panasonic's. 
Low light performance has reached the point of diminishing returns, frame rates are impressive all around, and everyone's sorted out internal 4K. The technology has begun to plateau, begging the question: how will everyone differentiate themselves? Panasonic rocks in ergonomics, bit depth, and stabilization. Canon has pretty color, lens selection, and DPAF. Sony still has the edge in extremely low light, but other than that...What do they offer over everyone else? 

I've liked clear zoom too on my Sony cameras, but the 1.4 extender function on the GH5 is 100% lossless. It's really like having an optically perfect tele-extender.

I will give you that for sure. Panasonic did well with that feature. But the Sony can go to 2x which is a pretty big advantage. But the bigger the worse it can be at times, just like 2x physical ones behind lenses are.

I've liked clear zoom too on my Sony cameras, but the 1.4 extender function on the GH5 is 100% lossless. It's really like having an optically perfect tele-extender.

Ah, you are right! I totally forgot that, but I guess it's because I've always used the AF/AE lock button for that one shot focusing and left the menu set at AFS.

Jon, it was my understanding that regardless of how you set AF-C/AF-S, when shooting video, it defaults to AF-C. However using the AF/AE hold button (assuming you set it to AF), the AF will set itself on the subject once, and remain there. Of course I too could be confused.  

I don't see it either! Between not knowing how people view these things, the monitors they use, calibrated and non-calibrated, the web browsers used (I see a huge difference between color rendition on my 5K IMac between Safari and Chrome), and who knows what other variables, good luck making comparisons.
Someone posted how fleshtones were being pulled to magenta in one posted pix. Not on my IMac, fleshtones looked great. In other pix, one says fleshtones are great and someone else says they're terrible. It's almost becoming amusing to me.
What's important to me, is thus far I'm liking the color I see on my GH5, but of course that's 'only' on a 75" UHD Sony or 65" OLED.
.
 
OK, granted I'm now only looking at this on an IPad, but I still don't see what you're talking about other than 'imperfections' in Jon's skin (don't feel badly Jon, we all have em'). I give up. 

Of course if you enjoy 4K60p (I love it), there I no other DSLR that will do it.  

Shutter speed is too fast, IBIS is not switched on, and camera movments are too fast.

I don't see it either! Between not knowing how people view these things, the monitors they use, calibrated and non-calibrated, the web browsers used (I see a huge difference between color rendition on my 5K IMac between Safari and Chrome), and who knows what other variables, good luck making comparisons.
Someone posted how fleshtones were being pulled to magenta in one posted pix. Not on my IMac, fleshtones looked great. In other pix, one says fleshtones are great and someone else says they're terrible. It's almost becoming amusing to me.
What's important to me, is thus far I'm liking the color I see on my GH5, but of course that's 'only' on a 75" UHD Sony or 65" OLED.
.
 
OK, granted I'm now only looking at this on an IPad, but I still don't see what you're talking about other than 'imperfections' in Jon's skin (don't feel badly Jon, we all have em'). I give up. 

I used clearzoom few times and most of the time it sucks balls, result is too soft/pixelated when mix the footage with another one with proper zoom on another angle in multiple cam setup during event/theater setup, ETC mode while gives you really good result without degrading sharpness except the increase in noise at lower light environment, though both wont offer you the same bokeh as proper zoom.

I don't see the either/or thinking. Both AF and MF can be useful in the right situation. I shoot only video, and MF is the way to go for 99% of the shooting I do.
But I do want to say something about waiting for the next A7siii:
If it existed right now I would not care to have it in the vast number of instances.

Perhaps it might be useful in studio. But the weight of the lenses and terrible stabilization (compared to Olympus/Panasonic) make it very problematic for field shooting.
IMO little has been said about the incredible in-camera stabilization of the new Panasonics and what it does for on-location shooting hand held. I've been shooting hand held with the G85, using a .72 focal reducer and speed booster, and using FD lenses and it is a world better than trying to manage the weight and limited stabilized full-frame Canon lenses. 
And the sensitive light and focus control is much better shooting manual FD rather than full-frame Canon lenses.
Here are what I see for all the pros shooting video with Panasonic in-camera stabilization with speed booster plus FD lenses.
1. more sensitive and subtle focus control.
2. more lens choices---all are stabilized.
3. incredible low-light capability. I have in one small camera bag (very light) 1 85mm 1.8 (1.2 w speed booster), 1 50mm 1.2 (.095?? w/ speed booster), 1 35mm 2.0 (1.4 speed booster), 1 28mm 2.8 (2.0 speed booster), 135mm 2.8 (2.0 w/ speed booster); all stabilized, all giving me about the same perspective as the 1DX mk II. The whole set up is very light--nothing like the torture of lugging full frame Canon lenses---but wait! These are full-frame Canon lenses! Plus, I can use Rokinon Ef to MFT speed booster with click less aperture--all stabilized. Why the Hell would I forsake that for a larger sensor when all the weight and focus problems--and the cost come with it!! I mean, it's video. Just how sharp does it have to be--just how necessary is it to pixel peep till your eyes are blood shot?!?
4. FD lenses are cheap compared to their full frame equivalent--and with the speed booster they provide near a full-frame angle of view and faster F-stops. There's nothing Canon or Sony make the FD + speed booster can't provide you with plus at least one full stop more light.
So, why should I switch to a full-frame Sony and have to pay full frame prices? and deal with the weight and the AWFUL impossible to use manual focus???
Other than Panasonic, another option I see is using the in-camera stabilization and speed booster FD lenses with the Sony a6500. That yields even better image/light results  than the Panasonic G85, but the shooting is more physically challenging, inconvenient, and not nearly as pleasurable as shooting with the Panasonic. Can't say about the GH5 because it hasn't arrived yet here in the States. I pre-ordered mine, and it should arrive early next week.

IMO: IF Sony put the body of the a6500 in a slightly larger, DSLR style body (like the GH5) and improved the ergonomics to make the shooting experience a little more facile I would buy it in a New York minute! --Hell, half a New York minute.
I love that camera, and the results with its combination of in-cam stabilization, speed booster, FD lenses, and, IMO, image quality is second to none. Plus, the aps-c sensor is really much the same as the Super 35 sensor more traditionally used for video.
The Bottom Line:
An inexpensive, light, easy to use set-up providing freedom from the tripod, a beautiful image, amazing focus control and low-light, excellently stabilized---you lose almost all of those when you go to the full-frame Sonys, Canons, etc. But you have them in the GH5, G85, and the a6500---they allow you to shoot all day and not to have to undergo physical therapy for a week.
Alas, if only Sony would improve the camera body--making it slightly larger, just a bit heavier, and with a better grip. Put the a6500 in something like that and you've got my money! 

LOL This is "the" joke! Priceless. The best definition of pixel peeper I've ever read ; ) *thumbsup* :-)

Hell on my monitor it looks great at 100%. Well now Jon, not so great. For some reason the Red disappears when I blow it up here, but on YouTube it is too Red.
But I just don't see the chroma smearing you are talking about??
I mean yeah the curtains behind him maybe what you are talking about, they look more OOF than smeared?
This link shows for a GH4 at least, that a good LuT can change it tremendously from not so hot to holly shit! Christ those women in the feather things are well, GREAT! http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340808-Leeming-LUT-One-%96-the-best-LUT-for-the-Panasonic-GH4/page52
I don't think we ought to be blaming cameras as much as we ought to be blaming the LuTs in them we use!! Not counting not doing WB, BB, wrong exposure, on and on.

Yes, it's there. But have you ever spotted ghosting in any of the real world low light tests completed so far?
I've seen ghosting when freeze framing some footage (the low light V-Log stuff from Emmanuel Pampuri) - but it's not noticeable to me during playback from what I've seen so far. And ghosting is something that really bugs me, having wrestled with it extensively on the XC10. Even in this video, which is the classic wave-the-camera-around-to-show-ghosting, you have to kind of concentrate to spot it.