newfoundmass

Because he shoots with a GH5, and sees that noise is nothing to worry about with the GH5!
Thus it is only logical for him to concluded noise from a GH5S also won't be the big issue you are trying to claim it is. 
Yup, as I've said a bunch of times, comparing stills vs stills will only barely tell not even half the story.
 

Really, really disappointing. I kinda wish they'd not released it at all, ha ha, because it's so disappointing. I was really looking forward to a powerful pocket cam that I could carry around with me. I would've had a lot of uses for this camera. 

I feel like they have sat on one of their best and most enjoyable to use cameras for 4 years, refusing to up-date it when Sony was updating their rival (RX100) every year.
And then they finally update it and make it worse! Worse 4K crop!
The GH4 sensor (or very similar) was in the LX100.
Why put a low-end camera sensor in the successor and not the GH5 sensor, which would be in keeping with the previous strategy.
And as others have pointed out, obviously the lack of other significant changes is really off-putting.

And still no Cinelike D
I'm going to wait for the Leica version of it so I can feel as let down but with a slightly more elitist glow.

I have more experience with the Mk I than Mk II (a lot more) but the low light on the Mk I is outstanding and I understand it's much better on the Mk II (due to more in-camera NR). If you expose properly and boost your ISO rather than trying to underexpose and push the footage in post, which is a mess with AVCHD, you'll have a usable image up to 20,000 ISO and a great image up to 4000-5000 ISO. So I would say a massive improvement over a Canon dSLR, but still significantly worse than an A7S for low light (where I would consider an f4 zoom fast enough). The A7S is much cleaner at extreme ISOs but smudges color more so it's a bit subjective which is preferable in medium low light, but I think the A7S is pretty clearly the extreme low light king.
I think you could get by with the 24-105mm, but I never found the 24-105mm great (granted, I was using it on FF) and I find the 18-135mm USM with the rocker zoom a lot better for crop. Constant aperture is less of an advantage if there's no rocker zoom, AF is worse, and it's not parfocal, so I wouldn't dwell on the one-stop advantage on the long end. If you have access to the 18-135mm and to the 24-70mm f4 IS, you're more than good for slow zooms imo.
I had two 17-55mm f2.8 IS lenses, but sold both. They're very useful but a bit old, not optically up to the latest. We put one up against a $50k Angenieux zoom and the Angenieux was much much better, but by f4 it was close enough. I think the newer Canon zooms would compete better. But I still slightly preferred its image to the 24-105mm. The  24-70mm f2.8 is also good zoom range to complement the 70-200mm and adequately fast, but poor for small spaces and terrible for real estate; I used the version one on a C100 and I liked it, but it could have gone wider. For me the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, a 50mm f1.8, and the 70-200 zoom make a great kit, but you have to be okay with swapping lenses. For documentary use or short form narrative I'd say that's an ideal kit, but for videography or news the 18-135mm Nano USM is far preferable. But imo the 24-105mm feels redundant with, and generally worse than, the superb 18-135mm Nano USM (I just sold one but I loved it while I had it, though I found the zoom rocker really cheap). 
If you have the money and don't need wide angle, the 24-70mm f2.8 Mk II is sick and might be the lens that spends the most time on your camera. Great image. Haven't used one myself but worked with someone who had one and was really impressed with the images and ergonomics. Can't vouch for the AF, though. Lack of IS is not a big deal with it since it doesn't go that long. I remember I rented out my 18-35mm Sigma as part of a kit and the DP refused to use it and went with the 24-70mm f2.8 II IS instead. I think the image is even better with the 24-70mm than with the Sigma, but both of those are outstanding lenses and the trade offs between them will depend on personal preference and brand loyalty. The Canon has better build quality, though, will last much longer imo.
I'd wait on a new lens until you're familiar with the camera. 

- GH5
- Metabones EF<>m43 Speedbooster 0.64 XL
- Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2
- Kowa 2X Anamorphic for Bell&Howell
- cheapy +1 diopter
Original is: 10368 x 3888
Oh, and the black dots on the bee is not what you think, those are the wing roots, not eyes.
It's flying away from me, towards the hibiscus.

The GH5 is more than capable for stills, especially for online publishing. The 6k photo mode is great for social media use. If I was mostly focused on photos I'd probably look at Fuji or Sony, but if you're going to use it for a lot of video work the GH5 is definitely one of the best options out there in my opinion. 

Yeah, after reading and re-reading the advice here and after seeing things head into the M4/3 conversation, it only makes me feel more like moving towards a c100 mkii. Since everyone's shooting situation is different and people hear have thoughtfully commented on mine, it seems the big signs point that way. c100 mkii offers me;
- 60p for my slow mo
- Native lens support and DPAF
- ND's Built in (which helps a guy running around outside at a school, weddings sometimes, etc.)
- No Time Limit recording
- I also believe that current USED price point (around $2500-2800) is going to be my best bet for a Cinima camera. mk3 would be out of my price range if one came out and who knows what the future holds. I actually almost pulled the trigger on one for $2480 2 weeks ago, but ended up being too scared, and now I'm kinda kicking myself, that was a good price I believe. 
Once again, thanks everyone for your thoughts and advice.  I think I am going to wait for a good price and start worrying about my shooting, not my gear. 
Cheers, Chris
 

Yeah first time for me to hear the sensor actually get burned, unfortunately I did encounter Sony A7sII overheat and shut down on me.
 
 

 
This is the combo I use for event, unlimited recording time, full size HDMI out, long battery  (well C100mKII battery is much longer with bigger battery), and never overheat whatsoever.

There's no comparison between the C100 and Canon DSLRs; the IQ is far superior. It provides some of the best 1080p video I've ever seen, which is remarkable considering the codec.
The ergonomics, the pro features, no recording limit, etc. all fit what he's looking for. It's still a great camera and, in my opinion, a good deal. Crazy to see people arguing against it. 

Here is another statistic they dominate after +3900 votes.
And thats on my channel where Sony is getting constant praise.

So once again you where just a liar and a fanboy. At least this time you admit it. I guess thats a step in the right direction.
Btw, Sony is in my top favorite camera video... so another lie from you debunked.
The interesting part is that you can't see that the poll is pointing at people like you. Your last post pretty much prove it. You quote a comment from me, a Sony shooter who constantly praise and recommend them, where I give it a bit of critique and gets totally triggered. Defensive. Fanatic.
Im done with you now. Just wanted to show others that you often lie about people and that I've never made a video where I say "that Sony sucks balls".
Im starting to think someone is putting to much detergent in the cocaine you are smoking.
I wont plat your game, out.

Putting it like that sounds like you're giving it a bit too much credit. It's more like a LX100... with a touchscreen, USB charging and new sensor/processor, which is... a bit lame if you ask me. I'm disappointed they didn't do more with it. That's not what 4 years of learning and listening should look like. Guess they're pulling a Canon here playing a segmentation game like that...

Agreed with the above. With +4 hours of battery life, unlimited record time, dual SD slots, ND filters, internal stereo shotgun mic (and XLRs if needed), Dual Pixel AF, a 4K downscaled to 1080p sensor, uncompressed 4:2:2 recording via HDMI, top handle and pivotable side grip ergonomics allowing steady shots without IBIS, Super35 sensor from the C300, peaking/zebras/waveform assist.. and it's current price tag, the camera still easily surpasses most current cameras in quite few departments..

You're acting like he's planning to buy an XL1 or something! That's an antique. You don't call a perfectly capable camera that meets most professional's requirements an antique because it doesn't shoot 4k or have insane HFR.
He'll get superior image quality, vastly better audio, better ergonomics, and the ability to record longer than 30 minutes (a necessity for the content he wants to produce).
The C100 is still used by tons of professionals even today. I know at least a dozen personally that shoot on it still, from studio work to going into war zones in Iraq to shoot news/documentary footage. I'm sure if he had the money he'd buy the C200 or C300, even if he still only shot in 1080p. But for under $2,000 and for his specific requirements (wanting to stay in the Canon family), he's not going to do any better than the C100 and it'll still be a relevant and capable camera for years to come. For his uses and budget it's a good investment. 
Hell, in a couple years he'll still be able to get something for it, probably at least half of what he'll pay for it, if he decides to sell or upgrade. 

You're acting like he's planning to buy an XL1 or something! That's an antique. You don't call a perfectly capable camera that meets most professional's requirements an antique because it doesn't shoot 4k or have insane HFR.
He'll get superior image quality, vastly better audio, better ergonomics, and the ability to record longer than 30 minutes (a necessity for the content he wants to produce).
The C100 is still used by tons of professionals even today. I know at least a dozen personally that shoot on it still, from studio work to going into war zones in Iraq to shoot news/documentary footage. I'm sure if he had the money he'd buy the C200 or C300, even if he still only shot in 1080p. But for under $2,000 and for his specific requirements (wanting to stay in the Canon family), he's not going to do any better than the C100 and it'll still be a relevant and capable camera for years to come. For his uses and budget it's a good investment. 
Hell, in a couple years he'll still be able to get something for it, probably at least half of what he'll pay for it, if he decides to sell or upgrade. 

Not just folks who still use the C100 as their main camera, but there are lots of people I know with say a FS700/C300mk2/UMP/REDs/etc who still bring out their C100 on a semi regular basis for their cheaper/smaller jobs such as the OP mostly does. 

You're acting like he's planning to buy an XL1 or something! That's an antique. You don't call a perfectly capable camera that meets most professional's requirements an antique because it doesn't shoot 4k or have insane HFR.
He'll get superior image quality, vastly better audio, better ergonomics, and the ability to record longer than 30 minutes (a necessity for the content he wants to produce).
The C100 is still used by tons of professionals even today. I know at least a dozen personally that shoot on it still, from studio work to going into war zones in Iraq to shoot news/documentary footage. I'm sure if he had the money he'd buy the C200 or C300, even if he still only shot in 1080p. But for under $2,000 and for his specific requirements (wanting to stay in the Canon family), he's not going to do any better than the C100 and it'll still be a relevant and capable camera for years to come. For his uses and budget it's a good investment. 
Hell, in a couple years he'll still be able to get something for it, probably at least half of what he'll pay for it, if he decides to sell or upgrade. 

Auto focus is a necessity, not so much for me but for those that have become obsessed with it. The GH5S showed that good low light is possible, and even the GH5 showed that low light capabilities are improving over previous cameras, so that's not a major issue these days, but narrowing the gap in low light performance is obviously something they need to continue with. 
I think exploring a APS-C sized sensor might be something they should look more into. With adapters it can get you very close to full frame, which is another thing people seem to becoming more and more obsessed with.
Overall though I think Panasonic has done a good job developing the system. Nearly 2 years after release I think the GH5 is still worth every penny and is still the only camera in its class capable of doing so many things. 

What lenses were you using with the C100? In my experience the output is dramatically sharper than any Canon dSLR, and sharper than downscaled 4k Red to 1080p or Alexa 1080p... (not as sharp as 3.2k or 4k when upscaled, though). Absolute night and day difference, same with dramatically better lack of aliasing, better color, incredible battery life, better low light (even than the 5D III raw, which is also much softer than the C100 with less DR) etc. Better sensor than the Red MX, imo, and a half stop better dynamic range, just a much worse codec. (Dragon sensor is another story–better than either except for low light.) I'm not trying to call your experience with it into question, but I'd make sure you were using good lens samples and exposing properly if you got those results since it's far from my experience with the camera. (And I've shot it extensively as a b camera next to the C300, F5, Red MX, BMCC, Amira, Alexa, new Varicam, etc. and a lot of that footage ended up on tv, including tier one cable and I think even Netflix, where it intercut seamlessly.)
While it's my absolute favorite camera for the money, I still basically agree that it's not going to offer much over the 80D for web shooters. Yes, you get a much much better image with far more dynamic range and better tonality, but for most clients, either image is good enough and for those clients who require something really good... most of them don't want AVCHD and do want timecode sync. And the external recorders are a PITA and the lack of timecode sync sucks. I had to use them then sync with plural eyes and I can't stand them and can't stand plural eyes, either. 
So I agree with your sentiment, but not your experience. I suspect the lenses you were using with the C100 were faulty (shoddy adapter resulting in incorrect focus marks or something) in some way if those were your experiences.
I do agree that the Mk II is too long in the tooth to command its current price, but I find the Mk 1 to be an absolute steal at $2k. Personally, I would look to the C200, except it lacks proper timecode sync, too, so maybe I'd look to the FS7, but by then you're getting a quite large camera and quite expensive. ?
Of course I disagree respectfully, just trying to offer my own experience. But I'm stumped re: your experience with sharpness and DR as it does not mirror my own at all. I also find the neutral NDs to be a godsend, even if the strongest one isn't strong enough. Never had any luck with ND faders (color shift and the cross polarization messes with skin specularity) and even IRNDs have color shift, so I'm a big fan of internal NDs. Same with the ergonomic improvements and video features (waveform monitor, focus peaking, etc.)–indispensable. 
But the EVF is unusable and lack of slow motion is very ten years ago. I agree there. I'm not saying it's the right camera for the OP, just that its sharpness is stellar and I didn't share any of your ergonomic complaints except the EVF.

I really love M43. My first interchangeable lens camera was the GH2 after having seen the Philip Bloom Christmas Special and Zacuto Shootouts where it punched well above its weight. I had considered the Canon 600D before, but I settled on M43, of which a big reason as well was that it was mirrorless and had a 'tiny' sensor, meaning lenses could be kept really compact, which was and still is a big thing if you're traveling around (and I'd rather have lenses be small, than shaving a few mm off a camera body, something I didn't understand about the APS-C E-mount line-up that had it all wrong (and then some)). Naturally progressed with the E-M1, BMPCC, GH4, G7. Then previously we had seen built-in sensor stabilization, but regarding Panasonic cameras it was really only used for stills. The GX80 changed that and with the tiny kit zoom (that still fools me with its ring, that I keep want to focus with (it only has a zoomring)) or Leica 15mm f/1.7 had the almost exact same formfactor of the premium compact LX100. The G80 gave you a mini GH5 before the latter was actually out and about. Still a very awesome hybrid camera, I doubt we'll see such a good value package again. Now the flagship stills shooter is the G9, which I have as well. It's a pretty awesome camera and does a lot of the basic video stuff as well, sport that huge EVF and extra push of hybrid IS. Of course I had to get the GH5 that ultimately was a video production beast, with all the bells and whistles. That's what I love about Panasonic. Where else are you getting a camera body with weather sealing, dual cardslot, vari-angle touchscreen, fullsize HDMI, complete audio interface, great batterylife, nice buttons/dials/joystick & customization options? Then internally, some of the best sensor stabilization, 4K60p, 10-bit options, limited rolling shutter, V-Log L, HLG, anamorphic mode, all the focus and exposure aids and overlays, incl. like waveforms/vectorscope. It's pretty dang crazy!
I doubt you can fault the camera bodies or the system itself. There's so many lenses to choose from in all kinds of sizes, budgets and quality. And the shallow flange allows for adapting third party lenses easily (the E-mount is better though). So... as a system I believe in it a whole lot. But it has gotten a lot of hate for its 4/3" sensor. Cameras were never all that great. But the A7S really rollercoastered things up. Pushing a GH4 beyond ISO800 was a crime against noisemanity and damn how convenient would it be to have a clean ISO1600, 3200, 6400? Dynamic range was never really up-to-snuff either. Always had this contrasty look with blown-out highlights and crushed blacks. Colors tempted to go orangey. But you have to admit that the recent developments are hella impressive on the post-GH4 generation cameras. What people are complaining the most about now is C-AF... yeah, I feel like Panasonic placed a bet on the wrong horse going with depth from de-focus. They should just admit their wrongdoings and change things up with the next gen. But it has to be said... C-AF never was great and it certainly wasn't as great as it is now. Yet... we always made it work. Think DualPixel AF has really spoiled a lot of people. Of course I applaud anything that's extra on a camera, the more the merrier and can be super practical at times (e.g. on a gimbal stabilizer), but to me it certainly is no dealbreaker. ISO sensitivity and noise performance is getting there. I think colors are about where they should be as well. Dynamic range is I think still one of the biggest issues with these cameras, although highlight roll-off and recovery has become much better already. One other thing that bothers people about the MFT system... the depth of field isn't as shallow as you'd get with fullframe. Well, that's a given. But honestly, we've got so many epic lenses and there a focal reducers. It's at a point that criticism is more like bokehwhoring. And you don't always need to have silky and creamy backdrops. Give your scenes some goddang context. People have become way too obsessed with blurry backgrounds what I'm concerned. Get any nice f/1.4 Sigma lens on MFT and you shouldn't need to wish for much more.
What would I like to see in the future? Well, it's healthy for the system if it got some more love from other people. So, it would be great to see people loving C-AF with it, rather than hating on it. Dynamic range and further improvement on color and sensitivity, combined with sensor stabilization is something I'm personally looking forward to. Not sure how far along they are with the organic sensor and global shutter developments, but such implementations would be interesting to see. Would also be interesting if they could work in some kind of ND-trick. Maybe set-up photosites as such that they have multiple base levels and never allow to clip or crush data (no need to protect highlights or shadows, get 'em both!). That they can drop sensitivity like an ND filter, a low and clean ISO band (ISO8-128 or some shit) if you will, without the need of optics. There's also still the possibility to pull something like we've seen implemented on the JVC GY-LS300, pairing the MFT mount up with an APS-C sensor behind it.
So... I don't think MFT is done for quite yet. I actually think it has improved significantly over the years and is an amazing piece of kit. There's already very little to complain about, so the future must be completely nuts. I do not care that the A7III is coming in at just below $2k for the camera body. If anything it will no longer have it make sense for Sony themselves to bother with the A6x00 series, that keeps camera bodies so small there's a lot of problems I have with them and neglect a dedicated line-up of compact lenses for the system (forcing you into mostly using fullframe E-mount lenses). Why would you get a 1799 A6700 when you can get an A7III for 200 bucks more? Because the crop works like a teleconverter? Well, you can use these FF cameras in S35 crop mode and the sensitivity and detail nowadays hardly gives the dedicated APS-C sensor an edge there, if any at all. Nikon and Camera mirrorless systems will likely only be fullframe and hella expensive, so don't just count me in there either. I like MFT. To me the G9/GH5/GH5S/E-M1mkII are the finest camera bodies on the market, that makes it fun and easy to shoot with. Mostly I love the fact that you have the option to keep lenses really dang small. Maybe it's the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 MFT, the Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 17mm f/1.8, Lumix 20mm f/1.7, 42.5mm f/1.7 or Zhongyi 25mm f/0.95... that's just so awesome. I wouldn't be getting that with the A7III. At the same time of course I could opt for bigger and more quality lenses, that's just another option you have. Olympus PRO, Sigma, Leica, some really good stuff can be had. And you can frankenrig things up as you see fit. Throw on any lens you want and make full use of the sensor stabilization! Throw on cages, rails and have at it. I don't know, personally I haven't lost excitement for the system. And there's not just Panasonic and Olympus anymore. There's DJI, Z Cam, YI Tech, et cetera putting their own spin on things. We certainly haven't seen the last of it! Most of all I'm excited now for the BMPCC4K. How awesome is that going to be? Cinema MFT FTW! ?

Auto focus is a necessity, not so much for me but for those that have become obsessed with it. The GH5S showed that good low light is possible, and even the GH5 showed that low light capabilities are improving over previous cameras, so that's not a major issue these days, but narrowing the gap in low light performance is obviously something they need to continue with. 
I think exploring a APS-C sized sensor might be something they should look more into. With adapters it can get you very close to full frame, which is another thing people seem to becoming more and more obsessed with.
Overall though I think Panasonic has done a good job developing the system. Nearly 2 years after release I think the GH5 is still worth every penny and is still the only camera in its class capable of doing so many things. 

$2000 for a cinema camera that has XLR, cLog, DPAF, internal NDs, with a really clean 1080p image downscaled in camera from 4K... that cost $6000 new only a few years ago... yeah that’s dirt cheap.

You’ll smile when you read this. 
After a brain spasm of a meeting today - the choice has been made and has gone ahead. 
It’s the EVA1, GH5S and GH5. The Atomos Sumo will join the EVA1. (@Sage will love this). 
We also need to update our gimbal. At the moment it’s a toss up between the Ronin-S and Tilta G2X? Tough. 
After all is said and done, I’m going to cry for week as I’ll be living on instant noodles and cheap biscuits for a while! ?

Few test shots for a short movie, made during half an hour with Panasonic GH5, mostly with Voigtlander 10.5mm. Being only with slow laptop - fast editing in Hitfilm Pro, even faster grading in Davinci  Resolve. (At a glance, it seems that youtube really sometimes makes wonder massacring contrast and DR