@Ebrahim Saadaw
It's not limited and it is 18Mp video but in 4:3 or 3:2 aspect.
It does not have raw, but it can use AF.

Yes, I think Zakzoezie is correct.

The new G85 is weather-sealed with a tonne of features and is only half the price of the GH4. In fact, I just bought one up for little more than USD $400.

It would seem the G85 is aimed at the enthusiast, whereas the GH5 has become more of a specialist "pro" camera for videographers.

If they sold a version of the GH5 that could shoot RAW 4k video for $3000 they'd have my attention.
I wouldn't care that it's not FF.

I wonder why you value Raw so much since it has extremely low compression now at 10bit, 4:2:2 and 400mbps and a Log Gamma?

You can grade thess images and shift them as much as you possibly want really, not a noticeable difference in motion (I call 10bit 422 the sweet spot, almost raw IQ with decent size files).

Perhaps for highly complex CGI/compositing for a high-end 4K output?

When you shoot stills, do you shoot RAW or do you just shoot jpgs?
"as much as you possibly want"
Maybe you're getting as much as you want with 4:2:2 and log but it's still not even ProRes which is about as close to RAW as you can get.
The X5S has more DR in RAW as it does in ProRes....
And you're making a case for cameras that aren't even encoding in ProRes.
I'm not getting as much as IIIII want even with ProRes.
I wanit it all!
I want everything out of that sensor that it can give.
You're welcome to be happy with you get from 10bit 4:2:2
:-)

Jpegs are not the GH5 video compression scheme, the GH5 is considerablly higher.

No one said there is NO need for RAW. I was merely asking why you do need it for that you'd pay an extra 1000$ for? (because motion picture RAW is not for casual video shooting of course - it's not like stills Raw at all which is casual)

bluevellet, so all these lens adapters and speed boosters are also just sitting there in stock collecting dust ? Why would ie a FF GH5 not sell like hell according to you ? Why is the Sony strategy giving them lots of A7 sales you think ? I dont say it needs to replace their m43 offer ...

Ebrahim Saadawi - Not exactly, a Speedbooster can emulate a ASP-C or FF camera in all but one way. It can't add a bigger sensor with bigger pixels for cleaner images with lower noise and better low light and dynamic range, that doesn't change, which is why an actual ASP-C or FF sensor camera would be better than just M4/3, especailly with all the features the GH5 has.

If Panasonic did make ASP-C or FF versions of their GH cameras (they don't need to stop making M4/3 cameras) with better low light, far less noise, more dynamic range and all the features the GH5 has and will have with the reported firmware updates coming in the future then there will be a lot of people who would want that, especially that culd take away sales from Sony Mirrorless cameras. Especially with Sony cameras overheating and not having 10-bit recording. But the closest thing we have to a FF equivalent to a Panasonic mirrorless, is probably the Leica SL, but its quite expensive.

The image-quality difference between an m43 sensor and a full-frame sensor is significant, but the image-quality difference between an m43 sensor and an APS-C sensor is not.

We're talking 0.6 of a stop, which is nothing when you consider that m43 system has so many high-quality fast lenses available.

I'm speaking as someone who's moved from Nikon APS-C to m43.

@bluevellet. Sounds like you're on the major defense for Panasonic. My concerns about them not expanding past m43 are MY feelings and opinion. You should respect people's opinion rather than defending this multi-billion dollar company that doesn't care or know that you're alive. Are they giving you free cameras to blast the posters who rant about their products?

Being in favor of a fully supported system instead of half-baked multiple ones is shilling for a company? No, it's an opinion from a potential customer who wants solid support before buying that type of product. Yes, an opinion, just like yours. That's what those comment sections are for and surprise surprise not everybody agrees with each other.

They are not hellbent. They made a conscious choice when they started with mFTs and that is to provide good enough image quality to a certain amount of people, deliviering a lenssystem with it that appeals (due to its size and weight) that appeals to a certain amount of people.

Now they have a very substantial lensline-up. COming to the market with another sized sensor means you now need to develop tow lensline-ups. That is not so costeffective and is probably a reason why we see next to zero if not zero E-mount lenses taylored for APS-c from Sony. All their effort is put into FF cam and ditto lenses.

Panasonic and OLympus made the right choice to me. Not for others. FUji X-T2 seems a great cam! Sony A6500 has a lot to offer. Pick one of them!

@ Zak: a FF cam like this with current tech would be sobig to accommodate a coolingsystem that prevents overheating. I hope neither Oly nor Panny will EVER go into FF. I'll buy a Sony or may be even a Hassy MF if I need that.

@bluevellet. "Being in favor of a fully supported system instead of half-baked multiple ones is shilling for a company"

Exactly what is "half-baked"? Full Frame? Doubtful. You're using the word shill in regards to your actions here. I never said that you were. But come to think of it....
Most other major camera manufacturers offer both Full Frame and APS-C and giving the consumer the flexibility of using the same lenses between both platforms. Neither which are half baked. They're giving consumers choice. Get off your shill bandwagon.

@jorginho. "That is not so costeffective and is probably a reason why we see next to zero if not zero E-mount lenses taylored for APS-c from Sony. All their effort is put into FF cam and ditto lenses."

Sony's full frame lenses as well as Nikon's are fully compatible with their APS-C cameras and both companies recommend using them. Reviewers have found them to work perfectly. Yes you have to do a calculation when using them on APS-C to know the proper focal length but that's a non-issue.

Henry, the point was made by me and someone else here; FF is not the limiting factor but company ressources. With other companies, more camera mounts is not paired with increased ressources to support the higher number of camera systems.

Canon's FF DSLR vs their APSC offering and M mount.
Nikon F mount vs APSC DSLRs and Nikon 1 mirrorless system
Sony EF cameras vs E cameras and A mount.

All three of these examples show a clear company preference for a particular sert of products over their other ones they also offer.

It's likely Panasonic would follow a similar pattern if they chose to introduce a new camera system. Since people like me already enjoy m43 products from Panasonic and then what you would propose would at best be a distraction and weaken their commitment to m43 in some way with absolutely no guarantee the payoff would be worth it for whatever new FF system they've tried to introduce.

So no thanks. :)

@bluevellet. And with all of that you put so much effort into writing, tell me where I said, "I sure wish Panasonic would stop making the m43 format!". Yeah, I didn't. I was just speaking out of concern as to why they remained on m43 and never expanded. It didn't require their "paid" defense team to come all out of the woodworks.

You said a lot of things, Henry. You said that "anything cropped more than APS-C is a dealbreaker" for photography, even though there is little difference between APS-C and m43. You said that contrast detection was "a big let down", even though it is more accurate and DSLR autofocus. You also said that it was fine for video but not for dedicated photo, without explaining why.

@Henry "Sony's full frame lenses as well as Nikon's are fully compatible with their APS-C cameras and both companies recommend using them. Reviewers have found them to work perfectly. Yes you have to do a calculation when using them on APS-C to know the proper focal length but that's a non-issue"

The problem with these lenses are that theu are taylored to FF in FL too. While a 24-70 f2,8 is nice for FF nice wide angle this becomes 36-105 on APS-c. Nice long FL but the lens is no longer multipurpouse since it severely lacks a wideangle now.
Also: these lenses are nothing short of huge and quite expensive. And this si true for a lot of lenses: the Focal lengths and size, including price make them less than desirable and it is a valid complaints by the users. Fuji understands it. Which is why they came out with a 16-55 F2.8. Which gets you 24-82,5 mm. Makes sense.
FE lenses will work technically, but won't work out nicely.

The downside of using FF lenses on APS-C is not calculating the crop factor or inadequate lens zoom ranges. It's simply: size, weight and cost. A 50mm prime works wonderfully as an 85mm prime on APS-C. But if the same lens was mads with the extra FF outer circle cut-off, it'd be a small, cheap and light 85mm APS-C prime. 囧 Actually that's why we have m43s glass vs just using FF glass on everything.

No.

Also don't get me wrong here, for all m43 shooters out there, the evolution of m43 equipment is a great thing and please enjoy it! This GH5 is a significant improvement in many, many ways over its predecessor, and hopefully noise levels will have improved one step further. The only thing for me is that I would love to switch back to m43 mirrorless since I experienced it as a great system with the Pana GH3, if only Panasonic would provide this 17.5mm f0.9 AF lens. And after that also the 25mm f0.9 AF, etc. Maybe they should have a look at Olympus who started with the 25mm f1.2 prime and will hopefully continue producing these super primes towards 17.5mm and other focal lengths as well. To make m43 a matured system, not only compact slower primes are useful, but also the faster primes that have a bit more weight & body are necessary. And yes adapters are there, but then no video AF and also it does not give me a reason to switch system since today I can do my video work without adapters.

Agree with you on 4K. I think it will become the laserdisc of our time. Overtaken by even newer technology before it has a chance to become widely adopted. The first 8K TVs are now in advanced development.

Alex Kooistra, OK for creative editing 4K can indeed be an added value. But how many video amateurs are really able getting the full potential out of it (technical know how SW wise) and how many times will it occur that we really need these SW features to make the video content wise so much better ? Put that against all the extra investments 4K shooting & editing requires and it simply stays a "no go" for me ... When talking about sharpness, all consumer TVs produce the weirdest artefacts when they have to deal with super sharp 1080p video. I much more prefer clean, noise free & smoothened 1080p video when played on consumer TVs.

aljudy, the resolution of the video will be the least worry of your children :-) Content, content & content ! Btw, converting 4K to 1080p is easy, but real time editing in 4K preferably in 10 bit 4:2:2 using ie davinci resolve is simply impossible on your laptop :-) And yes you can even spend more effort and time and storage by converting first all source footage to 1080 and then as a second step edit that. I have much nicer things I can do in life ... BTW, dont you worry about my 2 monitor desktop editing system, its a great real time performant editing system for 1080p video ;-)

utphoto, so was that your last shot, no more arguments left and as a consequence start barking and insulting other people as whiners ? Well listen carefully now, 4K with very limited added value is pushed in our throats for premium prices by the suppliers making us believe that we can make a difference with it, and some of us eat it while others not ... I'm not even trying to convince you or anybody, but notice that even professional camera people are having a hard time detecting the difference between 4K and 1080. So feel free to buy anything you like my friend ;-)