Mmmbeats

Congrats, I am sure you will love it. Mine is great so far.
That sounds about right....not enough difference to notice in real world shooting.
I was aware of the 4K120p limitation, funny how I always thought 120FPS would be nice to have but now that I have it I doubt that I will use it much if at all.
I still think the S5 might be better in low light due to the FF sensor and dual native ISO, that 4000ISO was incredibly useful; I haven't had a low light shoot yet so that's the last thing I need to test.
I do think that the C70 and CLOG2 is easier to grade right out of camera and easier to expose than VLOG. I just set the exposure for the WFM so that the highlights touch 80 for outdoors shoots. If the sun is in the frame I let that peak hit 100. 
The video was shot at 60fps and output at 30fps. I don't like the motion blur from 24fps so I never use that frame rate.

In other news - I just purchased a C70, which I will be collecting on Monday 😍.

In other news - I just purchased a C70, which I will be collecting on Monday 😍.

You are both correct, as this is just a different way of describing the apparent DoF.

@herein2020 is technically correct (yes, yes everybody - 'the best kind of correct' 😉), and @M_Williams is correct for practical purposes.

DoF is in fact the same whether using the speedbooster or not.  However, in order to achieve the same framing on the 50mm lens example you would have to alter the distance between the camera and the subject, thus altering the DoF.

I much prefer herein2020's way of stating it, but I have come to acknowledge that endlessly explaining this introduces just as much confusion as it clears up. 

I suspect that they might be pushing the limits of the current technology so who knows what would be possible and what wouldn't be possible.
I do know that CPU manufacturers have been hitting limitations on the technology and then having breakthroughs to surpass those limits every few years for decades and decades, and they're normally related to how small you can make things, so having a 6K sensor with all the processing and all the ADCs etc might well be nearing a limit, especially once you factor in the dual-gain functionality.  
Both the C70 DGO sensor and the Alexa ALEV sensors are lower resolution and physically larger, so they might be really pushing it - who knows.
Panasonic were pretty good about squeezing lots of stuff out of the GH5 in firmware updates, so I'd imagine they'll do the same with the GH6, so watch this space 🙂 
The slow-motion is one thing the GH6 has really upped, with the 4K120 and 1080p240 10-bit at 800Mbps, which is a huge upgrade from the 1080p 8-bit VFR bitrates on the GH5.
I wear polarising sunglasses basically the whole time I'm outside (Australia has much more glare than most other places) and I frequently see strange things like patterns in different types of safety glass and strange reflections / textures from objects etc that are to do with the polarisation of the light.  Even the blue of the sky doesn't look even because the polarisation of the very left of the sky is different from the middle and from the very right side, so lots of strange polarisation happens in real life.  
I don't shoot with NDs so I normally don't see these issues, but yeah, it's an interesting one.  Might be worthwhile getting a set of fixed NDs to give you flexibility in case you hit something that just reacts strangely with the vNDs you have, and then you can just dial things in and fine-tune with aperture if required.

I think this is what most people are going to do.  It troubles me though because you are shooting through 3 bits of tinted glass (2 polarised planes in the variable ND).

My experience of variable ND (Tiffen 2 - 8 stops) is mixed.  Around 85% of the time it is fantastic with little to no noticeable cast.  Many shots I forget that there was even any ND used.

But the times when problems are introduced can be very hard to predict.  Weird casts seem to appear based on such criteria as window coatings in buildings (especially office blocks and new-build public buildings), light bouncing off buildings, the sun at certain angles to the filter, etc.   The cast can also range from muddy brown to grey-blue (at high ND's).

It can also play funny with other filtration, such as diffusion.  All of which makes me a little nervous about stacking variable ND with more stuff. 

Yes it's not a good thing to put several ND

I think this is what most people are going to do.  It troubles me though because you are shooting through 3 bits of tinted glass (2 polarised planes in the variable ND).

My experience of variable ND (Tiffen 2 - 8 stops) is mixed.  Around 85% of the time it is fantastic with little to no noticeable cast.  Many shots I forget that there was even any ND used.

But the times when problems are introduced can be very hard to predict.  Weird casts seem to appear based on such criteria as window coatings in buildings (especially office blocks and new-build public buildings), light bouncing off buildings, the sun at certain angles to the filter, etc.   The cast can also range from muddy brown to grey-blue (at high ND's).

It can also play funny with other filtration, such as diffusion.  All of which makes me a little nervous about stacking variable ND with more stuff. 

I was really happy when I realised that the GH5 2x in 1080p was downsampled - it is even downsampled in the 1080p60 too, so if you shoot 1080p ALL-I codec then you get full-readout and 2x digital zoom downsampled in every framerate, and you also get the 1:1 ETC which is a ~2.5x zoom.
How odd that the larger cameras don't have as good video modes in this way.  The GH5 was the flagship though so maybe the S1H has those modes?
Fascinating about the 16-bit output.  I guess it might depend on the sensor mode.  IIRC other sensors sometimes have a higher bit-depth readout mode with limited fps, and then a reduced bit-depth mode where they get higher fps readouts, so maybe the 16-bit can only happen at 10fps or something.  
It would be great to see if that's possible at the 60fps speeds that the DR boost feature can do for video.
That makes sense.  Potentially then it's quite a different equation for your ND setup, but I keep thinking that all you need to do is work out what the maximum and minimum amount of ND you will need in daylight and just buy a fixed ND that compliments your vND to give you that range.  Then after sunset you remove the fixed ND and your vND should cover the range of shooting under artificial lights.  ISO 2000 should be a good base ISO for most low-light situations, so you should be using your vND even after dark anyway.
The GH6 is 5760 x 4320 and the GH5 is 5184 x 3456 so if you multiply those out then you get a 38% increase in total number of pixels, or a 11% increase in width, so not entirely sure where they're getting that number either.
Still, it's more pixels, and not stupidly more pixels, which is probably the right balance.
Yeah, odd, but I agree that the GH6 is a winner.
I see so many tiny little improvements they've made - I was contemplating writing a summary of what improvements I see that would be relevant to me in the real world and how I shoot.
The ISO performance on the GH6 is pretty darn good!

This is a decent point actually, but the GH5 native ISO for V-log is *optimal* rather than compulsory.  You can expose below it and take a slight DR hit.  Whereas the GH6 ISO 2000 requirement is a *minimum* for DR Boost, and if you want to expose at a lower gain setting you take a huge hit by switching to non-boost.

This is a decent point actually, but the GH5 native ISO for V-log is *optimal* rather than compulsory.  You can expose below it and take a slight DR hit.  Whereas the GH6 ISO 2000 requirement is a *minimum* for DR Boost, and if you want to expose at a lower gain setting you take a huge hit by switching to non-boost.

I'm the complete opposite.  I wasn't really that excited for the release and had no real intention of updating. 

I assumed that Panny would go for some kind of headline-grabbing big feature, but instead they seem to have really gotten to the DNA of what makes the line so appealing - great useability, powerful processing, features for real-world filmmaking.  I have to say I'm impressed - and sold!

A stop of dynamic range is actually a huge deal.  If you're trying to bring a window into some kind of exposure range, that's half the amount of light you have to deal with.  That's like pulling a couple of big fixtures onto set.

There's really no point comparing the GHx to the BMPCC in my opinion because they are completely different tools.  No way you can engineer what BM made with full IBIS, mechanical shutter, weather sealing, etc.  They are just great at doing very different things.

From official specs it looks like 100 is base ISO for regular profiles:
[Normal]
Dynamic Range Boost OFF (Base ISO 100): Auto / 50 (Extended ISO) / 100-12800
Dynamic Range Boost ON (Creative Video Mode) (Base ISO 800): Auto / 800-12800

[V-Log]
Dynamic Range Boost OFF (Base ISO 250): Auto / 125 (Extended ISO) / 250-12800
Dynamic Range Boost ON (Creative Video Mode) (Base ISO 2000): Auto / 2000-12800

[Hybrid Log Gamma]
Dynamic Range Boost OFF (Base ISO 250): Auto / 250-12800
Dynamic Range Boost ON (Creative Video Mode) (Base ISO 2000): Auto / 2000-12800
 

Yep, GH5 ALL-I is night and day compared to IPB for workflow. Very robust. 
Another poster mentioned ProRes being a standard. That’s it. I can’t count how many times I’ve been asked for ProRes files for both acquisition and delivery. 
Sometimes if there’s been a screw up with card space - I’ll shoot to H265 and transcode to ProRes later for workflow efficiency. I know full well the image quality trade off is incredibly incremental, so it doesn’t bother me if it means getting the footage shot. 
These ProRes critics are not to be listened to. They likely do not have the experience of working in certain environments where efficiency is paramount. It’s also another reason why most commercial video production companies don’t shoot RAW. 

This. The main concrete benefit of ProRes is that it's standard. There are a couple defined flavors, and everyone from the camera manufacturers, to the producers, to the software engineers, know exactly what they are working with. Standards are almost always not the best way to do something, but they are the best way to make sure it works. "My custom Linux machine boots in 0.64 seconds, so much faster than Windows! Unfortunately it doesn't have USB drivers so it can only be used with a custom keyboard and mouse I built in my garage" is fairly analogous to the ProRes vs. H.265 debate.
As has been pointed out, on a technical level 10 bit 422 H.264 All-I is essentially interchangeable with ProRes. Both are DCT compression methods, and H.264 can be tuned with as many custom options as you like, including setting a custom transform matrix. H.265 expands it by allowing different size blocks, but that's something you can turn off in encoder settings. However, given a camera or piece of software, you have no idea what settings they are actually choosing. Compounding that, many manufacturers use higher NR and more sharpening for H.264 than ProRes, not for a technical reason, but based on consumer convention.
Obviously once you add IPB, it's a completely different comparison, no longer about comparing codecs so much as comparing philosophies. Speed vs. size.
As far as decode speed, it's largely down to hardware choices and, VERY importantly, software implementation. Good luck editing H.264 in Premiere no matter your hardware. Resolve is much better, if you have the right GPU. But if you are transcoding with ffmpeg, H.265 is considering faster to decode than ProRes with nVidia hardware acceleration. But this goes back to the first paragraph--when we talk about differences in software implementation, it is better to just know the exact details from one word: "ProRes"

I wonder how many of these ProRes commentators work in a professional environment? 
Although it is better for grading than more compressed H2 or Long GOP codecs, ProRes isn’t really about image quality. It’s down to workflow. It’s substantially much, much smoother to work with compared to other codecs. Especially in FCP. This is invaluable when there’s a business to run as efficiently as possible. 
If you can shoot ProRes and you’re running a business - you should. Because it’s “old”, doesn’t make it worse. Look at the Arri Alexa. 
I’ve found XAVC-I and other infra-frame codecs to be close in performance and also great for professional workflows. Just not quite as smooth as ProRes, but very close. 
H2’s and Long GOP’s are quite smooth on M1 Macs, but not perfect. Fine for a lot of smaller projects and saving space. 

It's all about the quality of the isolation.  it can be tough to get, say, a clean skintone isolation even with a really strong codec at times.  If the colour data is thin you either end up with areas of skin that just won't key, or parts of the background that just wont separate.  I've had to just abandon secondaries at times.

Totally agree about Canon.  They seem to have some compression fairy dust.  The C200 8-bit was remarkable.

I think what people miss out here is secondary grading isolation, which also benefits from a rich data environment. 

I don't consider this specialised at all.  Its a part of a well-rounded grading workflow.  I don't end up using it for every single project, but if anybody is not using secondaries at all, well... they probably should be in my opinion.

It's all about the quality of the isolation.  it can be tough to get, say, a clean skintone isolation even with a really strong codec at times.  If the colour data is thin you either end up with areas of skin that just won't key, or parts of the background that just wont separate.  I've had to just abandon secondaries at times.

Totally agree about Canon.  They seem to have some compression fairy dust.  The C200 8-bit was remarkable.

I did consider that but didn't think that you'd be doing anything as radical as a green screen or background replacement etc.
What kinds of secondary adjustments would you really notice a poor quality codec?  Genuinely curious.
It all depends on what you're doing and the application of the format.  
Really this thread is relevant for people who aren't really sure of why Prores is a good feature, and often they're satisfied with h264 or h265 because they're "better", but if you're going to be doing work where you're really seeing the differences between these codecs then you're not the one who needs convincing!  Sadly, lots of people start with the position that 'newer is better' and 'more is better' without actually applying those statements to the entire pipeline, to the implications on set or in post.
I'd say that the quality of the encoder is probably more relevant in this case.  As an example, the C100 provided an image that compared favourably to other cameras with double the bitrate, so obviously Canon had really made the encoder work hard and really get a good result.  Cheap cameras can produce horrific results with heaps of bitrate.
The difference that 8-generations of compression made was far far smaller than the difference between a C100 image and most other cameras, even those downsampling 1080p from a 4K sensor, so that's why I didn't consider it to be particularly relevant.
I'm super happy the GH6 has prores and think it's one of the (many) great upgrades over the GH5, so I'm definitely with you on this one!

That's not good enough for me.  An 8-bit file from the same camera will generally 'look the same' (absent any banding) as a 10-bit file from the same source.  That doesn't mean its going to perform as well in post.

I think what people miss out here is secondary grading isolation, which also benefits from a rich data environment. 

I don't consider this specialised at all.  Its a part of a well-rounded grading workflow.  I don't end up using it for every single project, but if anybody is not using secondaries at all, well... they probably should be in my opinion.

The GH5 is relatively unique in that it offers a good selection of ALL-I codecs, which I use and are just wonderful in post. I guess other cameras would benefit from this though, as not many other models/manufacturers seem to have this included.
Interestingly, I thought for the test I would encode and re-encode each codec over and over again until one of them started breaking down, but I setup ffmpeg to do that on a 1080p version (to save processing time) and after 8 generations on h264 IPB at the same bitrate as Prores HQ I had to pause because the file looked the same.  At first I thought that ffmpeg was being too clever for me and just copying the stream instead of re-encoding it, but when I zoomed in crazily (something like 800%) there were subtle differences.  So really, all else being equal and when given enough bitrate, they all do a great job, so it's really the other factors that I highlighted in my post that are the deciding factors.
I suspect you are talking about this video?
This is probably the part you're referring to?

I found it hard to tell TBH, even with it moving, but that is a comparison between Prores on the Shogun, which is either HQ at 700Mbps or Prores 422 at 471Mbps vs the GH5 codec which is 400Mbps, so there's not much difference in the bitrate there.
The 400Mbps is on the high side compared to most cameras bitrates, and with the GH6 in 5.7K they'd be looking at 1500Mbps or 1000Mbps, which are significantly more again, so the bitrates really are pretty serious.
TBH, there's a point in diminishing returns with bitrate, not just because of accuracy vs bitrate, but also that if you multiply the resolution and bitrate by 9x (1920 x 3 is 5.7K) you're not increasing the size of the screen that the viewer will view the image on, so actually, once there is sufficient bitrate to render the screen to a certain optical quality it doesn't really require much more if you increase the resolution on the same display, or at least, it doesn't need to increase by a factor of 9.
Of course, if you're doing green-screen or other hard-edged keying, cropping in post, stabilising significantly, compositing and other VFX operations then that's a different story, but those are specialist applications and not general ones.
 

The main advantages of ProRes over H.264 and H.265 are smoother playback and better facility for bouncing down to further generations.  Its designed to work really well in a post production environment, which it does superbly in my experience.

Its no surprise at all that the codecs look similar at the same data rates, in fact it is H.265 that you would expect to look the best as it is the most efficient encoder.

Of course H.264 looks good at reasonable data rates.  If it didn't it wouldn't have been utilised as an acquisition codec by just about every manufacturer under the sun at some point.

The point is that IPB codecs are horrendous in a post environment.  People are excited by ProRes 422HQ in the GH6 because, unlike the other two codecs, it is *guaranteed* to have high data rates (1.9 Gbps is what they are saying), and it will fit straight into our post workflows.

The main advantages of ProRes over H.264 and H.265 are smoother playback and better facility for bouncing down to further generations.  Its designed to work really well in a post production environment, which it does superbly in my experience.

Its no surprise at all that the codecs look similar at the same data rates, in fact it is H.265 that you would expect to look the best as it is the most efficient encoder.

Of course H.264 looks good at reasonable data rates.  If it didn't it wouldn't have been utilised as an acquisition codec by just about every manufacturer under the sun at some point.

The point is that IPB codecs are horrendous in a post environment.  People are excited by ProRes 422HQ in the GH6 because, unlike the other two codecs, it is *guaranteed* to have high data rates (1.9 Gbps is what they are saying), and it will fit straight into our post workflows.