Mmmbeats

It really doesn't matter.  You could even crop the UHD if you prefer the 1.9:1 aspect ratio, for a small drop in resolution.

I used this book and though a bit dated I’m terms of software, the concepts easily translated to FCPx’s newer color correction tools. Lots of fundamentals and more importantly the why in addition to the how. I haven’t seen a tutorial video that’s better than this book. I used the included source footage and downloaded lots of test footage, like the Blackmagic P4K stuff, for extra practice.
Good luck.
Chris
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Technique-Digital-Color-Correction-ebook/dp/B00B3SITHE/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541643928&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=color+correction+hullfish&dpPl=1&dpID=51I5US-LKLL&ref=plSrch

The GH5 is one of those cameras where far more people own one (or more) than are visible from forum posts and YT reviews etc.  They are workhorses.  Even if no more MFT cameras or lenses are released ever again there will still be many thousands of users making millions of videos per year for the next 5+ years.  4K 10-bit isn't going anywhere soon.  There are major networks in the US who still shoot 1080 and broadcast 720, and people watch YT on their phones.
My recommendation is to work out exactly what features you require in a camera system, to review your options and then go buy what you need.  If you aren't sure about a GH5 vs something newer then that means the GH5 already meets your requirements and so you're just tempted by shiny toys of new cameras.
At the end of the day, a camera is a tool to make stuff.  Either buy a GH5 and stop worrying about what's around the corner and go make stuff, or keep what you have and stop worrying about what's around the corner and go make stuff.  If you're worried about the resale value of the camera then maybe stick with the camera you already own and go buy stocks instead - tech is the worst investment possible

..

Wired is ultimately better, but the convenience of wireless trumps it if you are shooting and recording yourself.  Mic up the talent, stick the transmitter in his/her pocket, and get on with the million and one other things you have to take care of.  Just do everybody a favour and take off the headphones if they pop to the loo!!!
Can see the merits of wired too though.  It's a close call.

better build quality (metal vs plastic), headphone jack built into the receiver for when i'm using a camera without a headphone jack, and significantly smaller body back. Only thing I liked about the Rode link was that there was no protruding aerial/antennae. 

I have the Sony UWP D11 and it's been working wonders for me. Upgraded from the rodelinks after a few weeks lol. @IronFilm
But I'm also a big believer in audio gear. I believe I spent more on audio gear than anything else this year.
A video with bad audio is a bad video, no way around it.

Gets done all the time. Is very normal. 
 
This.

I'd put the RodeLink though into the category of a "cheapo" one. But if I was generous, only borderline so. It is "ok ish" for some people, but it can be easy to outgrow it. 

Thus it feels like false economy to buy a RodeLink when a Sony UWP-D11 is only a couple of hundred bucks more. 
 

Number 1 Rule of Thumb for Audio: get the mic closer! *
(Note: with some minor exceptions, like if a mic has a strong proximity effect, or if the actor moves a lot and the boom is locked off. But honestly most audio newbies would do less harm if they ignored these exceptions and just followed Rule #1 to the max)

Rule #2 is: kill any competing noise sources! (fridges/traffic/talking crew/background music/etc)
Faster and less fuss. 

The number of times the interviewee will get up and walk off while still wired is many (creating at worst risk of damage to your audio gear and even camera it is wired to, and at best creating embarrassment/nuisance)

Plus with wireless you can wire up the next person before they even sit down. 

On any commercial shoot it is foolish to compromise like this to save a few pennies by going with the cheaper wired option, not unless you're some ultra ultra ultra low budget OPC social media shoot.
Yup. For long interviews of single subjects then have a locked off boom overhead with a lav as a back up.

That's not been my experience at all (and I am very much an amateur when it comes to sound!).  There's not much in it, but the directional nature of the mic vs the omnidirectional nature of the lav creates better separation of the subject from any background noise.  True the lav gets closer to the source, but I still hear the shotgun mic delivering better precision.
Also, clothing adds an unpredictable element to the recording with lavs if you want to hide them.  I can usually get good sound in the end but have to EQ back in the higher frequencies.
I boom over the top (slightly forward) of my interviewee, using a Rycote suspension mount.  No basket.
I'm aware of the phase cancellation problem with using shotgun mics indoors, but honestly, I've gotten perfectly fine results with it so far, and never noticed any degradation of the audio.  It's true that something I'm not noticing might be going on, but the point is - I'm happy with the results.
That said I have it in mind to upgrade my audio equipment, which lags far, far behind my camera and lighting (and editing) equipment, which shouldn't be the case at all really.

OK, I'll bite...
What are the reasons people are dismissive of wolfcrow?
He seems to me to know what he is talking about and has had (apparently) enough time with several different camera models to present opinions backed up by experience.
Maybe I am missing something that is obvious to everyone else? (Wouldn't be the firs time...)

A lav is not the only solution. Simply moving your existing ZOOM  off the camera and placing it nr the sound source will make a substantial improvement to sound quality.  If the subject is static/seated you can put it on a stand under them just out of frame or get a boom pole and 'boom buddy ' and have it just above them out of frame. 

Couple of practical (non image quality) thoughts on the C200:
 - I like the fact that it's built for the job rather than needing to have several extra's bolted on. Not as much customisation/fun (perhaps) in that sense, but just works.
 - Price represents a solid tool for the job etc. A lot of money (Though why pay list/offer price? Always negotiate as you may be surprised), but see it as an investment for 5 years say and the pain is a little less. Be warned this purchase won't stop you browsing camera body threads, but it helps a little with that affliction. You'll most likely end up endlessly browsing lens/lighting choices from now on (no bad thing), content in the knowledge the body is solid and fairly future proofed (for a decent enough amount of time anyhow).....
 - Can be kept pretty compact/stealthy and stabilised with just a small (IS) prime attached
 - I have the Shape cage for additional protection and ability to bolt on more kit if really needed. Good snug fit. You'll want to protect that investment
 - Would be tempting to remove the viewfinder but permanently removed would be problematic. Such a shame this is not easily detachable/attachable by user. Size of unit quickly increases with top handle, microphone and 70-200 for example, far from stealthy..
 - Viewfinder feels pretty substandard compared to recent mirrorless offerings. Totally fit for purpose, just quite noticeably smaller/less pleasant to use vs. say Fuji X-H1
 - Screen good enough, touch very responsive in my view. Use is not so great in bright light and hence the viewfinder is present for a reason
 - Cable from camera to the screen is heavy/stiff/short and causes issues with Gimbal mounting/balancing
 - On that note, i'm far from convinced the Ronin-S is a good choice here. Balancing near impossible (especially with screen attached) without counterweights unless you really want to limit the choice of lens. Admittedly the Shape cage doesn't help here. Really you'd want counterweights (to mount to bottom of C200 or DJI mounting plate somehow?) and a very lightweight HDMI cable to feed another (non C200) monitor screen that is mounted to the handle somehow - if you want to see what you're doing that is....
 - DP Autofocus is very good, but it's not infallible. For example, Fuji is 'nearly' comparable in my book, X-T3 better than X-H1 it seems, but still Canon is not lightyears ahead or perfect (in my opinion) as is frequently stated. Of course there's manual focus for which the aids are good..
 - Moving the focus point with the joystick is painfully slow. Why not a two speed setting here I wonder? There is the touch screen of course which is responsive
 - Internal ND's. Well, brilliant really, but you'll still be tweaking ISO/Aperture as expected as they are stepped. Not easy to change ISO and Aperture without side handle attached. Perhaps i'm missing something here. Aperture/ISO vertical side wheel on the left is an odd one, it works, just not very tactile/easy to locate..
 - No AutoISO exposure as far as I can find? I know it's perhaps regarded as a amateurs tool by some, but would be very useful still at times. I can hope this will be added in the future via Firmware revisions
 - Battery life concerns, well forget about them really compared to many mirrorless, especially with the larger BP-A60 (expensive but again sized for a job). Larger battery may also be beneficial in terms of weight placement on a gimbal - depending on lens etc.
 - Not having a stabilised sensor (of course good and bad here) means that stabilised lenses are well advised for many. The 85mm 1.4 IS is frankly amazing in my view. 35mm F2 IS also great. Want to go wide and stabilised with autofocus, hmmmm, F4 wide/shallow enough for you? Room for a new lens in the Canon line-up here....
 - Will not be compatible with present/future RF lenses so 'forced' to invest in lens tech that may be superseded, but is of course still brilliant in many instances and will always work with an adapter on future models
 - In terms of general usability, accessing menus/options/button placements, I just don't love it, perhaps that is a 'yet' statement. Difficult to quantify, just a personal feeling..
Hope it helps some...

There isn't much options, the 3 majors brands left are seagate, WD and Toshiba. All about the same in terms of performance and reliability (check blackbaze stats on its website). So far the largest HD are in the 12-16 TB range and the price per TB doesn't lower beyond 3-4TB. We are reaching the maximim size and nothing should change until next year when WD and Seagate will introduce HAMR and MAMR.
As for speed, you should get a 7200rpm but the best is not to use HD for editing, even mounted in Raid 5.
Here are some comparison I made of actual price and product range
 

Wait. Shooting a dark scene does not necessarily mean crazy high ISO.
You really need to think about what you are exposing for. Do you want to see beams of light, with body shapes looming out of the shadows? Or is it important to see the actors faces, even when they are in the dark parts of the set?
Darkness is suggested by high contrast, not just by making everything dark. So the trick is to get some specks of bright light hitting just the things you want the audience to see.
Also, it's common for dark scenes to be lit slightly higher than intended and then 'crushed' somewhat in post (the shadow values taken down). This allows you to preserve a bit of detail in the shadows without the crazy ISOs you are correctly trying to avoid. 
The problem you will have with this last method is that, as I mentioned before, the real trick is to preserve high contrast, and if you raise the shadows, you also have to raise everything else - in other words, your flashlight and accent lights will then have to be pretty powerful.
Spot metering is your friend.
Do some tests. Grade the tests.
A monitoring LUT might help on set if you are doing a kind of 'day for night' job.

Atmosphere (fog or haze) is very often used to give torch lights those volumetric beams, btw.
One more point - the most important aspect of these kinds of lighting setups is the modifiers.  Particularly you will need quite a range of flags to control where your highlights end up, and to protect the rest of the set from stray light.  If you can't get hold of professional ones, you can improvise these with bits of thick cloth or cardboard.  But *IMPORTANT* be aware of fire safety using these materials alongside hot lights.  

Wait. Shooting a dark scene does not necessarily mean crazy high ISO.
You really need to think about what you are exposing for. Do you want to see beams of light, with body shapes looming out of the shadows? Or is it important to see the actors faces, even when they are in the dark parts of the set?
Darkness is suggested by high contrast, not just by making everything dark. So the trick is to get some specks of bright light hitting just the things you want the audience to see.
Also, it's common for dark scenes to be lit slightly higher than intended and then 'crushed' somewhat in post (the shadow values taken down). This allows you to preserve a bit of detail in the shadows without the crazy ISOs you are correctly trying to avoid. 
The problem you will have with this last method is that, as I mentioned before, the real trick is to preserve high contrast, and if you raise the shadows, you also have to raise everything else - in other words, your flashlight and accent lights will then have to be pretty powerful.
Spot metering is your friend.
Do some tests. Grade the tests.
A monitoring LUT might help on set if you are doing a kind of 'day for night' job.

Wait. Shooting a dark scene does not necessarily mean crazy high ISO.
You really need to think about what you are exposing for. Do you want to see beams of light, with body shapes looming out of the shadows? Or is it important to see the actors faces, even when they are in the dark parts of the set?
Darkness is suggested by high contrast, not just by making everything dark. So the trick is to get some specks of bright light hitting just the things you want the audience to see.
Also, it's common for dark scenes to be lit slightly higher than intended and then 'crushed' somewhat in post (the shadow values taken down). This allows you to preserve a bit of detail in the shadows without the crazy ISOs you are correctly trying to avoid. 
The problem you will have with this last method is that, as I mentioned before, the real trick is to preserve high contrast, and if you raise the shadows, you also have to raise everything else - in other words, your flashlight and accent lights will then have to be pretty powerful.
Spot metering is your friend.
Do some tests. Grade the tests.
A monitoring LUT might help on set if you are doing a kind of 'day for night' job.

Atmosphere (fog or haze) is very often used to give torch lights those volumetric beams, btw.
One more point - the most important aspect of these kinds of lighting setups is the modifiers.  Particularly you will need quite a range of flags to control where your highlights end up, and to protect the rest of the set from stray light.  If you can't get hold of professional ones, you can improvise these with bits of thick cloth or cardboard.  But *IMPORTANT* be aware of fire safety using these materials alongside hot lights.  

Wait. Shooting a dark scene does not necessarily mean crazy high ISO.
You really need to think about what you are exposing for. Do you want to see beams of light, with body shapes looming out of the shadows? Or is it important to see the actors faces, even when they are in the dark parts of the set?
Darkness is suggested by high contrast, not just by making everything dark. So the trick is to get some specks of bright light hitting just the things you want the audience to see.
Also, it's common for dark scenes to be lit slightly higher than intended and then 'crushed' somewhat in post (the shadow values taken down). This allows you to preserve a bit of detail in the shadows without the crazy ISOs you are correctly trying to avoid. 
The problem you will have with this last method is that, as I mentioned before, the real trick is to preserve high contrast, and if you raise the shadows, you also have to raise everything else - in other words, your flashlight and accent lights will then have to be pretty powerful.
Spot metering is your friend.
Do some tests. Grade the tests.
A monitoring LUT might help on set if you are doing a kind of 'day for night' job.

Wait. Shooting a dark scene does not necessarily mean crazy high ISO.
You really need to think about what you are exposing for. Do you want to see beams of light, with body shapes looming out of the shadows? Or is it important to see the actors faces, even when they are in the dark parts of the set?
Darkness is suggested by high contrast, not just by making everything dark. So the trick is to get some specks of bright light hitting just the things you want the audience to see.
Also, it's common for dark scenes to be lit slightly higher than intended and then 'crushed' somewhat in post (the shadow values taken down). This allows you to preserve a bit of detail in the shadows without the crazy ISOs you are correctly trying to avoid. 
The problem you will have with this last method is that, as I mentioned before, the real trick is to preserve high contrast, and if you raise the shadows, you also have to raise everything else - in other words, your flashlight and accent lights will then have to be pretty powerful.
Spot metering is your friend.
Do some tests. Grade the tests.
A monitoring LUT might help on set if you are doing a kind of 'day for night' job.

nice... and no slowmo ! Bravo ?
 

The same thing happened with the xc10. Specs were crap but the image was unmatched for a s16 look. It is the nature of canon. If u like good images then the Eos r will give u that. Talk about absolute sharpness in 4k is complete nonsense; its unimaginative and any artist worth anything could care less about it. 

Not such a big problem.  You either buy one really good camera, or the other really good camera.  Happy days.

Not such a big problem.  You either buy one really good camera, or the other really good camera.  Happy days.