kye

I think it was the combination of the screen and the fan.  
I'm super happy with it as it's not too much larger and it's not larger from the front, which is what matters from the perspective of shooting in public and not gathering too much attention.  By the time you put a lens on a camera, then depth of it is huge so a few extra mm isn't a big deal.
My suggestion is to start with how and where you shoot and work backwards.  For events you'll probably be valuing flexibility over other performance, so you're probably talking about zooms.
Then the question comes of how much you care about having a long zoom range vs having a faster aperture.  At one extreme you've got the 12-35mm F2.8 which is the fastest but shortest zoom, then things like the 12-60mm F2.8-4, then all the way to 12-100mm F4 and even the 12-200mm F3.5-6.3.
I don't shoot events but my understanding is that mostly there is decent light, and many here have commented that the longer zooms work best because you're always just a zoom adjustment away from the shot.  Especially with the improved low-light from the GH6.

I guess it's official in Europe. OMDS is no longer accepting pre-orders for the OM-1 due to high demand. It's funny because some people thought it wasn't worth the price tag, but the evidence shows otherwise.

It could be a Fairchild sensor. 

ISO 12,800 gives you the opportunity to shoot at higher f-stops in lowlight, which was traditionally impossible without a lot of artificial light.

But anyways the GH6 looks like a solid low light performer and just a good all around performer.

yes, but the discussions here are, way more civil when we disagree on things... (I have yet to receive death threats on this forum)... 

I'm starting to get used to no IBIS, I don't trust the digital stabilization at all, I feel it could burn in some warping or artifacts that I can't get rid of later, so instead I just shoot handheld while trying even harder to keep it steady then I rely on DR's stabilization in post. I do have new respect for DR's stabilization, it is pretty amazing actually and the nice thing about it is you can always just turn it off or try a different type if the one you pick warps the footage.

I've had my eyes on this lens as well. Since it's closer in age to my FD 50mm 1.2 L, I thought it could be a good carry around lens to match. 

The Canon L 20-35 F3.5 should be a hell of a lens by your account. It´s one I have had my eyes on for a while. @kye
The 35-105 could have been a dream zoom lens for a full frame video camera. But the plasticy quality but foremost the problem with the bearings keep me from trying another one. Maybe I should keep my sample to start practicing some lens doctoring. But I think I am to nervous for stuff like that.:)

A key point that I feel is worth mentioning here is that you can't expect a LUT to grade your film for you.
What I mean by this is that you should be adjusting the image before putting it through the LUT (grading "under" the LUT) and potentially adjusting the overall levels after the LUT too, for more overall adjustments.
Grading under the LUT is simply adjusting the images exposure, WB, contrast, and other attributes, which is the same as adjusting the lighting ratios on set, the exposure of the camera and WB of the scene while shooting on film.
If you don't like the amount of contrast in a LUT, lower the contrast after you apply the LUT and adjust to taste prior to the LUT.  If you want a stronger look then increase the contrast before the LUT and lower it afterwards and you'll get a more pronounced look, or do the opposite.
These are creative tools, not one-click grading machines 🙂 

@PannySVHS I read somewhere that early on Canon were much pickier about which lenses got the 'L' designation and there are a number of non-L lenses that would have been given the L status if released decades later.
In that sense it's really down to reading the reviews and looking at sample images.

A key point that I feel is worth mentioning here is that you can't expect a LUT to grade your film for you.
What I mean by this is that you should be adjusting the image before putting it through the LUT (grading "under" the LUT) and potentially adjusting the overall levels after the LUT too, for more overall adjustments.
Grading under the LUT is simply adjusting the images exposure, WB, contrast, and other attributes, which is the same as adjusting the lighting ratios on set, the exposure of the camera and WB of the scene while shooting on film.
If you don't like the amount of contrast in a LUT, lower the contrast after you apply the LUT and adjust to taste prior to the LUT.  If you want a stronger look then increase the contrast before the LUT and lower it afterwards and you'll get a more pronounced look, or do the opposite.
These are creative tools, not one-click grading machines 🙂 

A key point that I feel is worth mentioning here is that you can't expect a LUT to grade your film for you.
What I mean by this is that you should be adjusting the image before putting it through the LUT (grading "under" the LUT) and potentially adjusting the overall levels after the LUT too, for more overall adjustments.
Grading under the LUT is simply adjusting the images exposure, WB, contrast, and other attributes, which is the same as adjusting the lighting ratios on set, the exposure of the camera and WB of the scene while shooting on film.
If you don't like the amount of contrast in a LUT, lower the contrast after you apply the LUT and adjust to taste prior to the LUT.  If you want a stronger look then increase the contrast before the LUT and lower it afterwards and you'll get a more pronounced look, or do the opposite.
These are creative tools, not one-click grading machines 🙂 

Yeah, and if you lift them 5 stops you get green lines for free! Sorry, couldn’t resist! 😆

I can make a jpeg look identical to 14 bit raw, but "visual" quality is not the point of raw. Lift shadows 3 or 4 stops and then compare again. 

S1 (so S5 and S1H) gives me incredible low light quality. Never had FPN but never underexpose by 5 stops in lowlight. 🙂 I underexposed a good deal and recovery from the Long Gop codec was spectacular to me.
Still, the GH6 looks extremely tempting to me. What I also love is to have the mode dial at the right hand where the shutter button / record button is located. Whereas for my S1 I have to reacht left for the mode dial. My little GX85 has it on the right side and it just feels right there for a hybrid. 4K 50p 10bit 422 Long Gop and All-I on the GH6 with juicy bitrates are very tempting indeed.
ISO 6400 give more detail than the GH5s as shown in Jordands comparison with the SH1. If I was in the position to buy a system camera for video I would go for the GH6. Actually I would wait a bit to see the footage coming out of it. If the digital edgy sharpness of the GH5 is gone it would be a no brainer for me if buying a new camera. I just don´t buy new cameras usually though.:)
Kye in a BTS shot is quiet a sight.:) @kye

Cameras are starting to get Prores, and opinions range from "prores is irrelevant" and "prores is old" to "this is the best thing ever!".  
So which is right?  Actually, both.
Why Prores is irrelevant...
Prores isn't better quality than h264 or h265.
Here's a test I did.  I took an 8K RAW clip from RED Helium and put it on a 4K timeline and exported it as uncompressed from Resolve, then took that 4K uncompressed and using FFmpeg (which is much better than Resolves export quality) and created 4K versions of the clip in Prores HQ, 10-bit h264 IPB, 10-bit h264 ALL-I, 10-bit h265 IPB, 10-bit h265 ALL-I, all matching the same bitrates.
The results were that all the h264/5 files and the ProresHQ looked basically identical to the original - even at 300% magnification.  
Here's the original 8K RAW on 4K timeline (at 300%):

and here's one of the h26x files (remember they all look the same):

So, 10-bit h26x is as good as Prores HQ - case closed right?  No.  To be technically correct, the statement is "10-bit h26x is as good a codec as Prores HQ at the same bitrate".
Why Prores is spectacular...
The bitrate of Prores HQ in 4K is just over 700Mbps.  Not a lot of cameras with that bitrate option!!  Most are more like 100Mbps.  Well, here's what that looks like:

Ummm....  where did the detail go?
Prores benefit number one...  guaranteed high bitrates.  
But that's using FFmpeg to take as much processing time as it likes, what about when it's being done in-camera?
Well, using FFmpeg to convert a 1080p uncompressed reference file to Prores HQ happened at 53fps and 10-bit h264 IPB was at 7.2fps.  That's over 7x more computation to create a file of equivalent bitrate.  Do cameras differ in h264 quality?  Absolutely.  I suspect that computation load is a factor here.  
If a manufacturer is compromising on quality for lowering processing requirements in-camera then the results will be worse than the 100Mbps result above.
Prores benefit number two...  lower processing power required, potentially meaning less temptation to compromise quality.
But the codec / bitrate isn't the only thing that impacts the image - processing also matters.  Specifically, NR and sharpening.
This is where things get difficult to compare because not many cameras have both - typically cameras are either RAW/Prores or h264/5.  
However, when you choose a codec you are also choosing the processing, because cameras mostly don't give full control for sharpening and NR on all profiles.  It will be interesting to see the GH6 profiles and how they compare, but mostly Prores are aware that the huge file sizes aren't for consumers and so will configure Prores to have less processing.
Prores potential benefit number one...  lower sharpening and NR applied in-camera.
What about RAW?
RAW is great.  The semi-compressed RAW formats make shooting RAW wonderfully flexible, giving the benefits of RAW without being forced to spend more on media than on your camera, but once-again, RAW isn't directly comparable.
ProresRAW and B-RAW mostly require an external recorder, making your camera larger, requiring extra cables and rigging, requiring additional batteries and chargers, and introducing more points of failure in your setup.  Some cameras have internal RAW, some even offer compressed internal RAW, but what if those cameras don't suit your requirements or shooting style?
Prores potential benefit number two...  in-camera with no extra equipment or hassles.
RAW is typically a 1:1 pixel readout.  This means that you either shoot using the full sensor resolution or shoot with a crop.
Shooting with the full sensor resolution means that you'll need compressed RAW or you'll have large file sizes (like the Sigma FP), and also that your computer may have to bear the burden of decompressing / debayering / downscaling a file with higher resolution than your timeline, which is something worth considering as I know a number of people who put all their money into cameras and lenses and are struggling with older computers to edit their work on.
This will become more and more significant as sensor resolutions gradually creep up past 6K, 8K and beyond.
Why not crop?  Well, goodbye wide-angle lenses, and hello to an extra step on set where you have to apply the sensor crop factor and your resolution crop factor to the lens focal length every time you want to change lenses on set.  If you have time on set and good systems and lots of support then that's fine, but mistakes are inevitable and the less complicated things are the less likely they are to be made.
Prores potential benefit number three...  in-camera downsampling.
So there we are.  Prores is an old irrelevant codec superceded by h264 and then by h265, but when its implemented in a camera the implications are potentially quite significant for many people, depending on what and how you shoot.

I do...  but I'm not about to jump around saying that it's a critical feature for everyone.
I think it's about shooting in available-light.
I currently own a GH5 and have f0.95 primes to get as much light into the camera as possible, but it's a stretch.  I shoot auto-ISO so I don't know the exact values, but I can tell you that I've pulled the camera up to my eye in a low-light situation and as I've adjusted the aperture from F2.8 (which it might have been during the day) to f095 I see the image go from looking like the worst colour science in the world to looking lovely with rich colours and a nice contrast.
Here's a few previously posted frame grabs that show the lighting conditions.
This was maybe 50m or more from the banks of the river and the only lighting was the lighting from the shore:

and a BTS of that shot, taken with a smartphone camera:

Another:

I find that essentially the GH5 sees slightly better in low-light than I do when paired with an f0.95 lens, so it is an equivalence to human vision.  
Unfortunately, getting lenses that are still sharp at f0.95 is very rare, and also you have no head-room for seeing anything that is hard to see with the naked eye.  There's still heaps of noise in those images though:

IIRC this was shot with the 4K 150Mbps LongGOP codec on the GH5 in HLG, so there's already likely to be NR applied in-camera and also some detail loss from the 150Mbps codec too, so in reality it was noisier than this.  I might have even applied my own NR in post on this image already, I can't recall.
So, it's unlikely to be at baseISO here, which means that the image could have been better with better low-light.
Once again, I'm not claiming that everyone needs amazing low-light, but I certainly use it and will benefit from the improvements in the GH6 over the GH5.

I do...  but I'm not about to jump around saying that it's a critical feature for everyone.
I think it's about shooting in available-light.
I currently own a GH5 and have f0.95 primes to get as much light into the camera as possible, but it's a stretch.  I shoot auto-ISO so I don't know the exact values, but I can tell you that I've pulled the camera up to my eye in a low-light situation and as I've adjusted the aperture from F2.8 (which it might have been during the day) to f095 I see the image go from looking like the worst colour science in the world to looking lovely with rich colours and a nice contrast.
Here's a few previously posted frame grabs that show the lighting conditions.
This was maybe 50m or more from the banks of the river and the only lighting was the lighting from the shore:

and a BTS of that shot, taken with a smartphone camera:

Another:

I find that essentially the GH5 sees slightly better in low-light than I do when paired with an f0.95 lens, so it is an equivalence to human vision.  
Unfortunately, getting lenses that are still sharp at f0.95 is very rare, and also you have no head-room for seeing anything that is hard to see with the naked eye.  There's still heaps of noise in those images though:

IIRC this was shot with the 4K 150Mbps LongGOP codec on the GH5 in HLG, so there's already likely to be NR applied in-camera and also some detail loss from the 150Mbps codec too, so in reality it was noisier than this.  I might have even applied my own NR in post on this image already, I can't recall.
So, it's unlikely to be at baseISO here, which means that the image could have been better with better low-light.
Once again, I'm not claiming that everyone needs amazing low-light, but I certainly use it and will benefit from the improvements in the GH6 over the GH5.

Cameras are starting to get Prores, and opinions range from "prores is irrelevant" and "prores is old" to "this is the best thing ever!".  
So which is right?  Actually, both.
Why Prores is irrelevant...
Prores isn't better quality than h264 or h265.
Here's a test I did.  I took an 8K RAW clip from RED Helium and put it on a 4K timeline and exported it as uncompressed from Resolve, then took that 4K uncompressed and using FFmpeg (which is much better than Resolves export quality) and created 4K versions of the clip in Prores HQ, 10-bit h264 IPB, 10-bit h264 ALL-I, 10-bit h265 IPB, 10-bit h265 ALL-I, all matching the same bitrates.
The results were that all the h264/5 files and the ProresHQ looked basically identical to the original - even at 300% magnification.  
Here's the original 8K RAW on 4K timeline (at 300%):

and here's one of the h26x files (remember they all look the same):

So, 10-bit h26x is as good as Prores HQ - case closed right?  No.  To be technically correct, the statement is "10-bit h26x is as good a codec as Prores HQ at the same bitrate".
Why Prores is spectacular...
The bitrate of Prores HQ in 4K is just over 700Mbps.  Not a lot of cameras with that bitrate option!!  Most are more like 100Mbps.  Well, here's what that looks like:

Ummm....  where did the detail go?
Prores benefit number one...  guaranteed high bitrates.  
But that's using FFmpeg to take as much processing time as it likes, what about when it's being done in-camera?
Well, using FFmpeg to convert a 1080p uncompressed reference file to Prores HQ happened at 53fps and 10-bit h264 IPB was at 7.2fps.  That's over 7x more computation to create a file of equivalent bitrate.  Do cameras differ in h264 quality?  Absolutely.  I suspect that computation load is a factor here.  
If a manufacturer is compromising on quality for lowering processing requirements in-camera then the results will be worse than the 100Mbps result above.
Prores benefit number two...  lower processing power required, potentially meaning less temptation to compromise quality.
But the codec / bitrate isn't the only thing that impacts the image - processing also matters.  Specifically, NR and sharpening.
This is where things get difficult to compare because not many cameras have both - typically cameras are either RAW/Prores or h264/5.  
However, when you choose a codec you are also choosing the processing, because cameras mostly don't give full control for sharpening and NR on all profiles.  It will be interesting to see the GH6 profiles and how they compare, but mostly Prores are aware that the huge file sizes aren't for consumers and so will configure Prores to have less processing.
Prores potential benefit number one...  lower sharpening and NR applied in-camera.
What about RAW?
RAW is great.  The semi-compressed RAW formats make shooting RAW wonderfully flexible, giving the benefits of RAW without being forced to spend more on media than on your camera, but once-again, RAW isn't directly comparable.
ProresRAW and B-RAW mostly require an external recorder, making your camera larger, requiring extra cables and rigging, requiring additional batteries and chargers, and introducing more points of failure in your setup.  Some cameras have internal RAW, some even offer compressed internal RAW, but what if those cameras don't suit your requirements or shooting style?
Prores potential benefit number two...  in-camera with no extra equipment or hassles.
RAW is typically a 1:1 pixel readout.  This means that you either shoot using the full sensor resolution or shoot with a crop.
Shooting with the full sensor resolution means that you'll need compressed RAW or you'll have large file sizes (like the Sigma FP), and also that your computer may have to bear the burden of decompressing / debayering / downscaling a file with higher resolution than your timeline, which is something worth considering as I know a number of people who put all their money into cameras and lenses and are struggling with older computers to edit their work on.
This will become more and more significant as sensor resolutions gradually creep up past 6K, 8K and beyond.
Why not crop?  Well, goodbye wide-angle lenses, and hello to an extra step on set where you have to apply the sensor crop factor and your resolution crop factor to the lens focal length every time you want to change lenses on set.  If you have time on set and good systems and lots of support then that's fine, but mistakes are inevitable and the less complicated things are the less likely they are to be made.
Prores potential benefit number three...  in-camera downsampling.
So there we are.  Prores is an old irrelevant codec superceded by h264 and then by h265, but when its implemented in a camera the implications are potentially quite significant for many people, depending on what and how you shoot.

I do...  but I'm not about to jump around saying that it's a critical feature for everyone.
I think it's about shooting in available-light.
I currently own a GH5 and have f0.95 primes to get as much light into the camera as possible, but it's a stretch.  I shoot auto-ISO so I don't know the exact values, but I can tell you that I've pulled the camera up to my eye in a low-light situation and as I've adjusted the aperture from F2.8 (which it might have been during the day) to f095 I see the image go from looking like the worst colour science in the world to looking lovely with rich colours and a nice contrast.
Here's a few previously posted frame grabs that show the lighting conditions.
This was maybe 50m or more from the banks of the river and the only lighting was the lighting from the shore:

and a BTS of that shot, taken with a smartphone camera:

Another:

I find that essentially the GH5 sees slightly better in low-light than I do when paired with an f0.95 lens, so it is an equivalence to human vision.  
Unfortunately, getting lenses that are still sharp at f0.95 is very rare, and also you have no head-room for seeing anything that is hard to see with the naked eye.  There's still heaps of noise in those images though:

IIRC this was shot with the 4K 150Mbps LongGOP codec on the GH5 in HLG, so there's already likely to be NR applied in-camera and also some detail loss from the 150Mbps codec too, so in reality it was noisier than this.  I might have even applied my own NR in post on this image already, I can't recall.
So, it's unlikely to be at baseISO here, which means that the image could have been better with better low-light.
Once again, I'm not claiming that everyone needs amazing low-light, but I certainly use it and will benefit from the improvements in the GH6 over the GH5.

Cameras are starting to get Prores, and opinions range from "prores is irrelevant" and "prores is old" to "this is the best thing ever!".  
So which is right?  Actually, both.
Why Prores is irrelevant...
Prores isn't better quality than h264 or h265.
Here's a test I did.  I took an 8K RAW clip from RED Helium and put it on a 4K timeline and exported it as uncompressed from Resolve, then took that 4K uncompressed and using FFmpeg (which is much better than Resolves export quality) and created 4K versions of the clip in Prores HQ, 10-bit h264 IPB, 10-bit h264 ALL-I, 10-bit h265 IPB, 10-bit h265 ALL-I, all matching the same bitrates.
The results were that all the h264/5 files and the ProresHQ looked basically identical to the original - even at 300% magnification.  
Here's the original 8K RAW on 4K timeline (at 300%):

and here's one of the h26x files (remember they all look the same):

So, 10-bit h26x is as good as Prores HQ - case closed right?  No.  To be technically correct, the statement is "10-bit h26x is as good a codec as Prores HQ at the same bitrate".
Why Prores is spectacular...
The bitrate of Prores HQ in 4K is just over 700Mbps.  Not a lot of cameras with that bitrate option!!  Most are more like 100Mbps.  Well, here's what that looks like:

Ummm....  where did the detail go?
Prores benefit number one...  guaranteed high bitrates.  
But that's using FFmpeg to take as much processing time as it likes, what about when it's being done in-camera?
Well, using FFmpeg to convert a 1080p uncompressed reference file to Prores HQ happened at 53fps and 10-bit h264 IPB was at 7.2fps.  That's over 7x more computation to create a file of equivalent bitrate.  Do cameras differ in h264 quality?  Absolutely.  I suspect that computation load is a factor here.  
If a manufacturer is compromising on quality for lowering processing requirements in-camera then the results will be worse than the 100Mbps result above.
Prores benefit number two...  lower processing power required, potentially meaning less temptation to compromise quality.
But the codec / bitrate isn't the only thing that impacts the image - processing also matters.  Specifically, NR and sharpening.
This is where things get difficult to compare because not many cameras have both - typically cameras are either RAW/Prores or h264/5.  
However, when you choose a codec you are also choosing the processing, because cameras mostly don't give full control for sharpening and NR on all profiles.  It will be interesting to see the GH6 profiles and how they compare, but mostly Prores are aware that the huge file sizes aren't for consumers and so will configure Prores to have less processing.
Prores potential benefit number one...  lower sharpening and NR applied in-camera.
What about RAW?
RAW is great.  The semi-compressed RAW formats make shooting RAW wonderfully flexible, giving the benefits of RAW without being forced to spend more on media than on your camera, but once-again, RAW isn't directly comparable.
ProresRAW and B-RAW mostly require an external recorder, making your camera larger, requiring extra cables and rigging, requiring additional batteries and chargers, and introducing more points of failure in your setup.  Some cameras have internal RAW, some even offer compressed internal RAW, but what if those cameras don't suit your requirements or shooting style?
Prores potential benefit number two...  in-camera with no extra equipment or hassles.
RAW is typically a 1:1 pixel readout.  This means that you either shoot using the full sensor resolution or shoot with a crop.
Shooting with the full sensor resolution means that you'll need compressed RAW or you'll have large file sizes (like the Sigma FP), and also that your computer may have to bear the burden of decompressing / debayering / downscaling a file with higher resolution than your timeline, which is something worth considering as I know a number of people who put all their money into cameras and lenses and are struggling with older computers to edit their work on.
This will become more and more significant as sensor resolutions gradually creep up past 6K, 8K and beyond.
Why not crop?  Well, goodbye wide-angle lenses, and hello to an extra step on set where you have to apply the sensor crop factor and your resolution crop factor to the lens focal length every time you want to change lenses on set.  If you have time on set and good systems and lots of support then that's fine, but mistakes are inevitable and the less complicated things are the less likely they are to be made.
Prores potential benefit number three...  in-camera downsampling.
So there we are.  Prores is an old irrelevant codec superceded by h264 and then by h265, but when its implemented in a camera the implications are potentially quite significant for many people, depending on what and how you shoot.

Cannot wait to try mine! C-mount adapter still traveling across the world though. Thinking about getting the 22mm pancake for shuttertherapy. Reminds me of the good old days when I read with exitement about the GF1 on Steve Huffs blog, which was my internet leisure time spot No 1 back then. I can feel some of that old exitement with the outlook on using this little beauty soon! Fujinon 12.5mm and here we go. EOS M and Angie 75mm on a light photo tripod (baddie even covers S35 with soft vignettes) and we are set for ultimate nerdom camera pleasures! Gotta get a kewl hat like Zeek🙂

There isn't any 25MP MFT sensor leak or Information of any kind. Usually there is some kind of Sony product paper out there. So my guess was it could be manufactured by Canon. Why? It's most probably BSI and it has a form of DGO of some derivative. Unless Canon isn't manufacturing their own BSI sensors? Is the sensor in the R3 a Canon manufactured sensor or Sony (there were rumors they were perhaps having Sony do the fab)?
On Semi doesn't have any 4/3 sensors listed on their product page. I doubt they are the provider.
That leaves Samsung as a possibility.
I feel like the A7SIII was hyped to the max but it honestly performs pretty badly between its native ISOs. Kinda weak codec mushy stuff as well. Side by side against the GH6 it looks like crap as far as useable detail. GH6 has the detail without being over-sharp looking. Honestly, the image looks pretty damn good. I wish it had better AF because it would be on my shortlist.

I think there's a chance that they'll implement the other flavours of Prores in a firmware update.  They've promised to have Prores HQ in 4K and 1080p in a firmware update, and adding the other flavours would make sense at that point.
I suspect that they pushed to get the 5.7K Prores HQ in-camera for the pre-production models because it's a headline feature, so that would have been a priority.
I'm working on a Prores vs H264 test now, so depending on what I find I might be posting a new thread on it if I find something worth sharing.

The user manual for the OM-1 is available now - https://cs.olympus-imaging.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/manual/om/man_om1_e.pdf