Mark Romero 2

Attempt #3
Added in some Luma adjustments.  We're starting to get into pretty tricky territory here, as you'll see from the curves, so this is where I start saying near enough is good enough.  Plus, with a checker we're still firmly in theory-land and who knows what will happen with real footage.
Alexa:

CineD:

This was accomplished with this Hue vs Luma curve:

There are still some challenges though, like the olive green is way too dark, but bringing it up with a Hue curve will bring up the other greens, or if I make the curve specific to the olive patch then is likely to break real footage, especially 8-bit footage.  It's a similar story with the brown patch.
I could go on to soft qualifiers etc etc, but you literally have no idea what colours that aren't on the chart you're severely messing up, and this is where the brain starts having problems thinking about subtle shifts within a 3D space.
Plus, to get this match, I had to apply a luma curve to the CineD footage that matched the levels, which would mean that using this on real footage would darken everything, but that's not sensible in a real-world situation.
Time for real footage.

Attempt #2.
This time I used a more sophisticated approach, and matched on all the patches in the colour checker.
Alexa:

CineD:

This is almost a perfect match.......if all you ever film is colour charts!
To get this I started again, and used the Colour Warper but with the highest number of points it allows, and ended up with this:

Things to note:
The points with black outlines are points I've adjusted The white patches below the spiderweb is the image data There are entire radial arms with no image data below it to match - this is the challenge of having a colour checker with limited numbers of points...  if this were a real matching then I would need thousands of points to compare.  For the sake of this process, I simply took the areas that had no data and spaced them out relatively smoothly This spider curve only adjusts hue and saturation, but ignores luminance, and was mis-matching the skin tone next to the brown patch.  For this, I did a qualifier and adjusted hue and saturation to match, making the qualifier as soft as possible while not messing up the other points.
This was the qualifier:

In plain English, this takes lighter skin tone hues on the brown side and shifts them towards pink.
Without this adjustment, instead of getting this:

You get this:

I still haven't matched the WB or Luma...

It's laughable in terms of how crude it is when you look at colour science and colouring as a whole.
I have re-watched every Juan Melara video a dozen times or more and I've gotten to the point of understanding (almost?) everything that's going on in those videos.  I had to watch, rewatch, follow along and recreate them, and even research techniques and terminology to get to this point, so it was literally studying.
I say that not to brag, but as context for the following:
I regularly see content on the colourist forums that is significantly more complex than anything Juan has included in his videos I see colour grading issues with a lot of online content, and am starting to see it in lower-budget TV shows now too I regularly see colourists talking about differences in looks that are so subtle I can't even tell the difference, and yet they are having a nuanced and productive conversation about it, so not only can they see it, but they're able to break it down and discuss it However, here's the rub - getting great colour is 95% the basics and 5% the complicated stuff.  You can literally get 80% of the results of a high-end show by:
Use any RAW-shooting camera Light well and within the limits of your camera Expose it properly, and shoot a grey-card Applying the manufacturers 709 conversion Grade using only the RAW controls, the Contrast/Pivot/Offset and the LGG controls That's it And if you are willing to compromise even further, to get maybe 50% of the results of a high-end show, all you have to do is:
pick a camera released in the last decade point it at something interesting

I fear, the AIV with '131 x 96 x 80 mm, 659 g'  is no less bulky than the S5 (133 x 98 x 82 mm, 714 g). I loved the look of my Minolta lenses on the A7 m I, and I really hope, the A7IV would perform the same way, despite the higher resolution sensor.  Ibis is certainly big plus for the S5, although the cropped in electronic IS on the Sony seems to narrow that a bit.   

My GX85 cost me about 30% of what my GH5 cost, but the more I use it the more impressed I am by it.  If I didn't have a GH5 for some reason, I could get by with just this camera, and would enjoy the process too.

You're not missing the point at all - the "conversion" I've done above is scratching the surface so little that my post is practically a stand-up comedy routine.
The vector scope does ignore luminance, so you're right there, but it's more complicated than that.  Here's a few thoughts:
Firstly, it's not possible to do a "real" match between two cameras unless you know where middle grey is, as that's the luminance level that you will be using these cameras at for exposing skin-tones and so camera profiles typically leave this luma at the set WB but are free to push the balance of everything brighter and darker than this point (e.g., warmer highlights and cooler shadows are very common) and as you're meant to use a colour checker by having the brightest square just under clipping and the cameras have different dynamic ranges the middle grey will be different and might not even be on that scale LUTs are most often 3D LUTs because the transformation is in 3D, meaning across hue / saturation / luminance (HSL).  This means that while I've matched the hues at those levels of S and L, the same H could be different at literally every other combination of S and L.  Colour profiles and colour science are hugely subtle things, relying on very small tweaks all across the HSL 3D space.  To match cameras truly you need to point the cameras at all the combinations of H S and L and then make a transformation that pushes one 3D lattice to the values of the other one.  This is what @Sage did in his GHAlex work.  I have a theory that even this isn't enough because it sits on top of the cameras WB, but that's a different story. The practical concern of the above is that I have matched a few strongly saturated hues but haven't matched the less saturated ones, which is where the skintones sit.  The charts do have some of these, so there's another level I can go to with what I have.  As I mentioned above in my reply to @BTM_Pix I also forgot to match the greyscales, but that's subject to middle-grey considerations, so not sure how well I could do that. Having said all that though, I've done simple hue matching (Hue vs Hue, Hue vs Sat, Hue vs Lum) to "match" radically lesser cameras to greater ones before (GF3 to P2K) and as crude as these adjustments are (and they are so tremendously crude as to basically be a joke) the resulting images certainly benefit considerably from that treatment.
The spirit of this is really that doing a "conversion" is impossible, my approach is laughably inaccurate, but there are still benefits to be had.  Both from learning along the way as well as getting something useful to use afterwards.

If you want to drill down into the different permutations of the elements within the profiles then I'd humbly suggest that you have a look at my profile stepper application which will automate the process for you.
Here are examples of it being used on an FZ2500 (but obviously works on the GX85 and all other Panasonic cameras) to run through the contrast and saturation permutations of the profiles.
CINE LIKE D
 
SCENERY
 
VIVID
You can choose as many or as few parameters to change as you wish and the range of them so in these examples I'm only looking at Contrast from -5 to +2 and Saturation from -5 to +3 but you can go the whole hog if you wish to and do +5/-5 on every parameter if you are looking for a total in-camera look for example. I'd be tempted to include the NR one as it will have an impact on colour.
The interval for the parameter changes in those videos are set to 3 seconds but you can adjust it obviously in the app.
Its easy to generate the subtitle file to embed into the video like I've done here if you wish but it has a display mode whilst running so you can just use the screen of the phone/tablet to show the changes like below.

Unfortunately, the shadows and highlight controls are not accessible externally so can't be included in the automation so especially if you are looking for a total in-camera look (or just for completeness) then once you are in the ball park of the profile that you want then I would be inclined to re-run the stepper with smaller permutation changes of contrast and colour only with manually set shadows and highlights permutations. 

Now for reference, and thanks to the beauty of standard colour checkers, let's review what the P2K and Alexa look like.
From this rather handy video:
I pulled various scopes.
It's likely to be relatively pointless (and depressing) to compare the GX85 Dynamic Range with these, so I'll skip that and focus on the hues.
P2K Primaries:

Alexa primaries:

Things to note here are:
Both these cameras have strong looks Orange and Teal directions are much more saturated than the Green / Magenta directions Hues in the Orange and Teal quadrants are rotated closer to the mid-point, with the Teal quadrant more compressed Both the P2K and Alexa pull the Magenta towards Red and leave the Green mostly untouched The P2K is stronger than the Alexa even, with its Magenta being almost on top of the Red, and with lowered Yellow saturation it's really skewing the colours to the Red / Cyan line, rather than the Orange / Teal line Personally, I think the P2K profile is a little too strong a look for me (you might disagree which is fine) but it's useful to see that the P2K and Alexa are both in the same direction from a "correct" look (with the colours in the reference boxes).
As such, I'll proceed to compare the GX85 with the Alexa colours.
GX85 Natural:

Alexa:

GX85 CineD

We can't compare absolute levels of saturation because I didn't perform the P2K test, which has also been put through YouTube compression, but we can look at the relative hue and sat of the hues.
What I'm seeing:
Alexa has similar saturation between Red and Yellow, Natural has Red>Yellow and CineD has Red<Yellow, but these are always adjustable Natural has similar Magenta to Alexa, with CineD giving it more saturation and it being less rotated towards Red Green in CineD seems to match better with Alexa CineD representation of Blue and Cyan is too saturated (comparing to Red as reference) but Natural is also too saturated and with a less accurate match In terms of which one to choose when grading to match the Alexa, I think you could use either profile.
The challenge is that you're capturing in 8-bit so you want to match in-camera as much as possible.  For this:
Both CineD and Natural have the highest shadows of any of the GX85 profiles I tested, so are more likely to contain the whole DR from the camera Levels of saturation are a balancing act, too much sat in camera and you'll clip strong colours, but too little in-camera and you'll be amplifying noise when you boost saturation in post Now to match the CineD to the Alexa.
Unmodified CineD

Alexa - with colour balance and sat

GX85 - "Alexa conversion" (ha ha ha)

Just for fun I used the new spiderweb tool thingy in Resolve to match them:

Next is to test it on real footage.

Now I've "made friends" with the GX85, I'm now looking at its colour profiles.  I've installed the CineD / CineV hack from @BTM_Pix so are including these in my testing.
In these tests, I'll be:
Looking at what the colour profiles actually do, with a colour checker and scopes Comparing these profiles to the colour profiles of the P2K and Alexa Grading selected GX85 colour profiles to match resemble the P2K and Alexa Working out what the best combinations might be and just generally working out what setup I will implement First, what do the colour profiles actually do?
I took the GX85, 12-35mm f2.8 lens (at 35mm) in the 100Mbps 4K mode, and shot my colour checker in direct sunlight.  I then brought those into Resolve, cropped, and blurred a little for cleaner traces in the scopes.  
I actually clipped the white square on the checker a little, oops!, but no test is perfect and neither am I, however I think the results should still be useful.  Here goes.....
Natural - let's use this as the baseline.
For those unfamiliar with these kinds of tests, it is worth noting a few things though:
Firstly, this profile is NOT NEUTRAL.
Anyone who's seen a colour checker in real life can tell you that the colours in the two middle rows (the two below the greyscale) are all about equally saturated - ie, very saturated.  These are the colours that are meant to go in the little reference boxes on the scope.  Notice how the red trace almost reaches the R box?  Notice how the pink and purple boxes look really pastel? Overall the profile is much more saturated in the upper-left (orange) and lower-right (teal) directions.  This is a relatively typical colour palette that looks pleasing. Also notice how the colours are rotated towards those two directions?  it's especially noticeable in the teal direction where the blue is rotated clockwise towards the Cyan reference box, and the cyan is rotated anti-clockwise towards the Blue reference box. These characteristics give a nice starting point, and are very commonly seen in colour profiles in general, although as the name says, this is a relatively Neutral implementation of that look.

Scenery - it's basically the Natural profile with more saturation, except notice the green is pushed slightly towards blue to give a but more hue separation in the greens.  Oddly enough, that might help give visual interest with scenery shots!

Portrait: Similar to Natural but more saturation (less than scenery) but this one slightly compresses the skin-tone ranges, pulling the yellows towards orange and the reds slightly towards orange too.  This helps to mask blemishes and uneven skin.  Nice. 

Vivid is..... vivid.  Panasonic really deliver huh!  Like natural but with heaps of saturation.

CineD.  The legend.  Lots going on here!  Here's what I see:
Slight compression of skin-tones and desaturating right on that hue Higher saturation of all colours except yellow-greens (a hue I know I dislike) and mauve (a hue named after an old lady) Also slightly compressing tones in the teal direction
CineV which is obviously more contrasty with a much lower black level, and consequently is also more saturated than CineD, but is also slightly more "correct" with some hues being closer to their theoretically correct locations, for example, the Red is now almost perfect.

If you take CineD and pull the shadows down then you get something very similar to CineV, only with more saturation (contrast creates saturation).  If you then drop the saturation a touch to match, you notice that CineD creates more even saturation between the warm tones and cooler tones, whereas CineV has more saturation on the warmer tones and less on the cooler tones.  Note, this isn't a WB difference - this is with the WB set correctly on both profiles.
TLDR;  
Natural profile isn't natural, but is a moderate amount of a relatively common colour profile pushing things towards orange and teal, and compressing skintones for more flattering skin rendering.  Other profiles kind of build on this foundation and kind of do what they imply with their names.  
CineD and CineV are a bit more complex again, with the main difference being the amount of contrast.

I have the S1Alex Alexa conversion which I’m using with the S5 with great success. It’s for V-Log footage but includes conversions for HLG and CineD which I’m also using. So as much as I understand that it’s not the same camera, I’m currently experimenting with using the conversion on CineD footage from the GX85. I have not made many tests yet (let alone scientific ones!) but to my eyes the GX85 footage behaves in a similar way so the end result is pretty close. 

Hey,
what is your opinion of the A7IV? What do you think of it, in comparison to the S5, for instance, as a hybrid shooter with 10bit opportunities? The A7IV is 1600 € more than the S5 here + the prices for some L-Mount have come down.
I saved all my dimes to jump on the 'next' A7 and skipping the A7iii, but now, I find it quite hefty priced compared to its peers. 
My main reasons to long for the next A7 were:
- good low light performance
- video specs that allow for post correction of white balance mismatches and decent highlight and shadow recovery   
- up to the task for five years or more
I think, the A7iii might cover most of it as well, which is around 1200 € in mint condition.
What do you think?
Does anybody already own the A7IV? 
 

Music video of old familiar track shot on S5 4K V-Log 10-Bit 4:2:2 shot with 20-60 kit lens. AF didn't wander. Camera is small & light and powerful. Great shooting experience.
 
 

I’ve just sold one of my S5’s…
I had two, plus an S1H and an S1R, but don’t need 4 cameras.
I still think it’s a great camera, but I’ve shifted into a B roll position now as the others are just too good not to use as my primary video and stills cameras respectively.
I’m not ‘waiting’ but hope Panny do bring out a second generation of FF cameras…but ideally not until 2023!

The image that you saw was with the S5 in APS-C mode.   This is for photography only, for video when shooting in 4K and in APS-C mode the barrel disappears as it should. My original plan was to use the EF-S 10-22mm for both real estate photography and video on the S5, but the APS-C mode only works for video apparently.  For photography, even if you pick APS-C mode it seems to use the full sensor even when shooting JPGs.
That makes sense that there is an optical difference between the 10-22mm and the 10-18mm. Any crop sensor lens that can cover a FF sensor won't have these problems.
 
To avoid corner warping with wide angle lenses I have always turned off stabilization and used a gimbal for real estate. I did quite a bit of testing with both and found that with both lens and IBIS off and the camera mounted to a gimbal I got no warping as long as my gimbal technique was correct and the gimbal was properly calibrated.

From everything I have read, the DJI Ronin series is unmatched by any other gimbal vendor in its motor auto tuning capabilities with the runner up being Zhyun Crane so that may be the difference.  The Ronin S can also fly a C200 (with a lot of fiddling) so with the S5 so far below its payload limit that probably helps as well. I did manage to upset it though when I tried to add a condenser mic to the top of the S5, even the Ronin S gave up on that one since the arm could not go low enough to center the load. But it does let me fly the S5 with the MC21, the Canon EF 24mm F2.8, and a Sennheiser receiver mounted to the hotshoe of the S5.
I have not tried the Canon EF 16-35 F4 which I also have; so far since getting the S5 all of my video projects have involved people so the Sigma 50mm F1.4 or the Canon EF 24mm F2.8 have worked fine for that. With both of those lenses I can leave everything on and no corner warping will occur hand held or mounted to the gimbal.

What gimbal are you using and is it perfectly balanced and calibrated? I used to leave IS on with my GH5 and a wide angle lens but the warping seemed to end up in the footage at the worst possible time. It took a lot of fiddling with my gimbal settings to get the proper calibration to remove everything when IS is off and with the Ronin S I have to hit calibrate every time I put the camera on the gimbal or the micro jitters will be there. But, once the gimbal is perfectly dialed in, there's no warping or micro jitters.
The hardest part for me is remembering to turn it back on before shooting handheld or moving to a different type of stabilizer.

MC-21,  but I do have one correction, my lens is the EF-S 10-22mm  not the EF-S 10-18mm. My  EF-S Sigma 18-35mm does work and I have one other crop sensor lens (can't remember the details on it) but that one worked as well. 
I only have 3 EF-S lenses but out of the 3, only the EF-S 10-22 did not work. Below is a picture of the problem with the EF-S 10-22mm mounted on the MC-21 with the S5. This is with the 10-22mm zoomed all the way in to 22mm. at the 10mm end it is way worse.

 

Yes Panasonic S5 + MC-21 works with Canon EF-S 10-18mm and switches automatically to APS-C mode. Auto focus and everything else works. Unfortunately you can't switch manually to Full Frame mode. It is well known fact that Canon EF-S 10-18mm covers full frame from 14 to 18 mm.  Corners are far from perfect on full frame, but for video we cut them anyway. Mine however is with modified mount, it can also be mounted on a full frame Canon body. Not sure if the original APS-C mount which protrudes out will be able to mount on MC-21.
It looks camera Panasonic S5 + MC-21 doesn't recognize EF-S 10-22 as APS-C lens and thinks it is Full Frame lens. Well then switch to APS-C mode manually (should be possible) and vignette will disappear.

It's funny because when i was watching the video this morning I was thinking, "what a bad grade!" Sure, it is kind of a bland shot of a bland Alberta sunset but Jinkies, Scooby.

Canon R3 Final Review - YouTube
@ 6:26
 Jordan: "if you need tons of flexibility in post, this lets you record RAW video internally--"
and the example of the flexible grading you're able to do with the internal RAW looks like he did the example grade in 5s, he raised the shadows in the underexposed clip and upped the saturation but that's it. Lazy if you ask me. 
 

The Canon EF-S 10-18 does not work with the S5. You can see the barrel of the lens with that lens on the S5. I was going to use that lens for real estate work since I already had it for a Canon Rebel T6S and I discovered it does not work. I ended up getting a 24mm F2.8 instead.  I also have a 16-35mm F4.0 but its a bit big and heavy for gimbal work.
I don't shoot much real estate these days since real estate agents in my area have continued to refuse to pay more despite the fact everything else is costing more, but if I still shot a lot of real estate I would probably get the  Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM for the S5.  With that lens at 4K30FPS it would be 14mm and at 4K60FPS it would still be a 21mm. 
 
 
Turns out it was something wrong with the camera. I sent it in for repair and got to experience Panasonic's repair service first hand. No status, no information, nothing at all, but 3wks later it showed up fixed. The shutter button was also sticking and they fixed that as well. Nothing more infuriating than a sticking shutter button when you are trying to half press to focus.

Expect no more vignetting* than this here:
source

24mm f/1.8
source
 
* which bothers me zero when under (crop &) control
 

@kye Amen.

@tupp Merci!!!