mtol

The thing is, open gate is a pretty big deal for people in charge of social media for companies big and small. Almost everyone i know doing that kind of work is a Sony shooter and are frustrated that they don't have that option, while my S5II X does. 
I know of at least three folks who switched to Lumix for open gate, though that's a drop in the bucket. Still, as other companies introduce it, Sony might find themselves shedding customers if they too don't introduce it soon. 

The a7 V is quite a predictable upgrade, nevertheless it's excellent. It does however miss a lot of video features that are present on the Panasonic S1 II / S1R II for a similar price, and the cheaper Nikon Zr / Z6 III... No open gate, no anamorphic, 4K is still maximum resolution, no real-time LUT can be baked into footage, and of course Sony still has no internal RAW codec to call their own.
Still, this is a $3000 entry level camera so we can't be too greedy can we?
Compared to...
Sony a7 IV. The previous a7 IV is now even more of a bargain, it will probably go down even further in price used, most likely to region of $1200. Stills quality the same as a7 V and probably more than most people will ever need. Video quality is excellent but the rolling shutter is on high-side, that's one area as well as the Super 35mm 4K/120p where a7 V has an advantage.
Sony a9 III. Well, keep an eye on that used price as it's already not a million miles off what a new a7 V costs...
Sony a1. Again, the more powerful option vs a7 V albeit with a few of the new features missing, you can pick one up used in the UK for £2700, same price as a new a7 V. 
Nikon Zr. THE choice if you want fake raw.
Nikon Z6 III. Much more price competitive than the new Sony.
Panasonic S1R II. The dark horse. It does more. Price is high though and I much prefer the Sony body design and build quality.
Panasonic S1 II. Certainly has the edge on the a7 V for video, if not autofocus. More expensive, but again keep an eye on the used market prices.
Overall I think the a7 V is predictable - it's good that we have another partially stacked sensor option though.

I also find this quite baffling, this camera in a FX2 body would have been a great move!
I don't get it!

Looks like a fine camera and it's overall a nice improvement over the A7 IV.  It is a little weird to see it being released right on the heels of the FX2 which still uses the older sensor.
That said, even though 4K is plenty, it is weird to see a major vendor releasing a new model that tops out at full frame 4KP60 and cropped 4KP120.  For a mostly video shooter, the A7S III is about the same price used as this one is new.  It has pretty similar dynamic range performance and the RS is like 9ms vs 14ms here.  If I remember right, the older camera also doesn't need to crop in to get to 120fps.  Or get a used ZV-E1 with most of the performance of the A7S III for 2/3 the price of the A7 V.

For a hybrid shooter, it makes more sense - but approaching the new camera from a purely video perspective, it's really a "meh."  It's not a terrible choice and people are going to shoot decent stuff with it, but it's sort of hard to imagine existing Sony shooters swapping up to it and even harder to imagine people who are invested in other systems changing to it.

There is something to be said about how my S1 still comfortably covers all my needs 7 years later...

The only real drawbacks I see are the card slots being crammed in the battery door and the lack of EVF, lack of open gate. The interference between the screen and the headphone jack would be a minor drawback as well. Otherwise, it looks like an exceptional value stacked up against everything else that's out there.

The 4" screen really reduces the need for an external monitor and I would like to see other manufacturers follow and the 32bit audio removes on more manual adjustment from the shooter's slate. I'd love to see these things integrated into another body with a slightly more professional build, and then I could be swayed to move over to Nikon. Maybe if the XLR adapter ends up working with the Z6 III that would be the move.

It's also a little shameful that Lumix wasn't able to build a camera with this same sensor that doesn't overheat. I wonder how that came to be.

IBIS for me was a total game changer, and it's crazy that no one has been able to come close to Lumix in this department.

This is extremely helpful, and also a bit disappointing. Thank you so much for your detailed response. 

It seems like there is ample reason to hold out for the S1HII, still.

I'd like to know too, especially about the S1II and using the Rec709 profiles (Natural specifically).
Everyone who's reviewed the S1II has done so using V-Log or Raw. I've read that it's not quite as aggressively digitally sharp as the S5ii/S5iiX but still showing some heavy NR and smoothing of fine details.
I might have to get a loan of one for myself to see whats what.

Sony seems to have better pricing strategy, but I'd say the S1II is still worth a premium over the FX2.

Photography has always been an expensive hobby. Since the SLR days there has been a clear mark of status associated with the best gear from the best brands. Wanting the best implied paying a lot more.
Camera companies have clearly segmented and re-segmented the "intent" you mentioned. Want the best hybrid video-cam with RF lens? Better pony-up for the R1, R3, R5M2 or R5c. Want the speed demon? There's your R7. Want a slow full-framer but with some limitations for video, as in no IBIS? Here you go with the R8. A considerably better camera and videocamera but no as expensive as the R1 and upper tier? Ahh, we've got your R6M2.
Every company out there does the exact same thing. 
So even if you are NOT looking for status, it's implied by your choice of gear.
The only way to eschew the game is by going full retro. And I mean really retro for gear NOBODY wants to use and can't even be used with modern computers easily.
I'm looking at you MiniDV, Hi8, and such.

Top of the line gear has always been prohibitively expensive.

I remember not being able to afford a 5D II back when I began with a T2I. Eventually I scraped together enough for a 6D, and I still envied people who had the 5D III - even though it was just an incremental upgrade. This feeling has never gone away. Every single modern flagship has been far too expensive for most users at launch, with the exceptions of busy working professionals and rich, rich hobbyists seeking status symbols.

I think if you really need the absolute latest feature set, theoretically you should be making enough money with your gear to justify the expense. These are high end tools being built for a very limited market and the price hikes between generations can be covered by a few days of fees from a working camera operator in most cases.

In my experience, I've never been making the kind of money that lets me buy new flagship cameras - so I make do with older, used gear, and it does 90% of the same job as the newer iteration. Yet while budget offerings seem to be drying up (I think the Z5ii is getting a lot of praise for being a compelling outlier here), there's no shortage of dirt cheap used cameras that will vastly outperform anything I could have imagined owning a decade ago. For filmmakers or photographers starting out, the options are vast and better than ever.

For professionals sitting on tens of thousands of dollars in lenses and camera bodies, it seems a little rich to complain that camera X mark VI is launching for 500 bucks more than its previous version. C'mon. What percentage of users actually need camera X mark VI when the last five iterations are great? Who is the hobbyist that needs a nominal reduction in rolling shutter performance or a 70fps burst rate for photos? Who is the hobbyist who needs to shoot noise-free video at 12,800 ISO and beyond? Who is the hobbyist that needs 8 stops of IBIS instead of 6, etc, etc.

Owning the latest-and-greatest camera will always been about status - especially as phones have eroded demand.

I would agree that from a features perspective the Fuji X Half seems very expensive, especially as it has little to no professional application. But then again, I see a lot of people with X100 series cameras and Leica rangefinders who don't seem too pressed by what they paid to wear them around their necks. Fuji knows exactly who their new camera is for - and spoiler, its rich people with money to burn.

(TLDR - Cameras are for rich people.)

It's a reminder that we're very lucky and have also probably hit a wall when it comes to image processing when a 2015 camera still looks so good 10 years later. 

Also from CineD

"So here I am, happily setting up the camera for ProRes HQ, C4K, 4:2:2, 2.40:1 (4096×1728) internal recording, and what I noticed while looking at some family test footage is that the material looks a bit “lifeless”. I mean, it is beautiful and crisp, but much too “digital”. A short call with my dear colleague Gunther, who conducted our lab test, and I was able to confirm that what I see visually is also evident in our lab test. After a short discussion, we agreed that this camera is truly suffering from extensive noise reduction implementation in ProRes internal recording mode. This is why I switched to ProRes RAW (HQ) in this test."

I'm mostly interested in the H265 and H264 codecs to keep files sizes reasonable on documentary projects. I hope these are not overly detailed too.

Also from CineD

"So here I am, happily setting up the camera for ProRes HQ, C4K, 4:2:2, 2.40:1 (4096×1728) internal recording, and what I noticed while looking at some family test footage is that the material looks a bit “lifeless”. I mean, it is beautiful and crisp, but much too “digital”. A short call with my dear colleague Gunther, who conducted our lab test, and I was able to confirm that what I see visually is also evident in our lab test. After a short discussion, we agreed that this camera is truly suffering from extensive noise reduction implementation in ProRes internal recording mode. This is why I switched to ProRes RAW (HQ) in this test."

I'm mostly interested in the H265 and H264 codecs to keep files sizes reasonable on documentary projects. I hope these are not overly detailed too.

I want one if the video isn't overly sharp in the details. I will wait and see though. I expect sales will not be super high, but being already set up with L-bodies this is a compelling camera.

I want one if the video isn't overly sharp in the details. I will wait and see though. I expect sales will not be super high, but being already set up with L-bodies this is a compelling camera.

Picked up a Contax Zeiss 85mm 1.4, my first 85mm, and I cannot believe I have neglected this focal length for so long. Absolutely loving it so far.

Picked up a Contax Zeiss 85mm 1.4, my first 85mm, and I cannot believe I have neglected this focal length for so long. Absolutely loving it so far.

Picked up a Contax Zeiss 85mm 1.4, my first 85mm, and I cannot believe I have neglected this focal length for so long. Absolutely loving it so far.

There is something to be said about how my S1 still comfortably covers all my needs 7 years later...

I have some experience with the 15 1.7 and while its sharp and tiny with nice color rendition I think it's best as a kind of point and shoot lens for the system. It's nice enough but I wouldn't use it for serious video work - it lacks good manual controls and character. No comment on the Sigma, but my highest recommendations for the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 if you're looking in that focal range. Tons of character wide open, tack sharp stopped down, incredible ergonomics and manual control.

I have a friend who still shoots GH5 professionally and his clients are happy. Really the GH5 represents insane value these days.

I have a friend who still shoots GH5 professionally and his clients are happy. Really the GH5 represents insane value these days.

I have a friend who still shoots GH5 professionally and his clients are happy. Really the GH5 represents insane value these days.