>>>Also I wonder how much of a difference adding dual ISO would have had on the GH5.

I am pretty sure that DUAL native ISO is dependent on the camera sensor supporting this feature.

>>>I personally felt the GH5 was overpriced

I only think things are overpriced if there is another solution that does everything at a cheaper price. For both the GH5 and GH5s I don't think there is a cheaper solution that does everything they do.

Everything points towards "Dual ISO" being Panasonic's name for Aptina's DRPix dual gain technology that Sony has licensed. That would mean it's a hardware difference within the sensor.

This is not connected to the sensor being oversized/Multi Aspect. It just so happens that the first Four Thirds sized chip we've seen the technology appear in happens to be oversized.

A version of this chip with a conventional Bayer CFA seems likely.

Who says you can't put a Speedbooster on a A7sXX in Crop mode??

You must be very badly informed, or just pushing your agenda, but A7sII can use speed boosters.

And about the 8 bit vs 10 bit. Search for comparisons on YouTube about the two and you will see that it is impossible to distinguish between the two. Noise is a much bigger issue to notice and this is a real drawback of the small MicroFT sensor compared to bigger ones, its at least 3 stops worse as you were schooled in the m43 forum by bob. :)

Hope you got something from that conversation buddy. Its nice to learn.

See, I'd be inclined to agree with you and say that the OP is off base with his comment, but then you start with the hyperbole yourself: "The a6500 has a major overheating problem, and the video is not as good as you say. It is low bit rate 8-bit video."
None of these statements is true - the overheating problem has been way overblown, the footage is still fantastic and very competitive in 2018, and the bitrate is offset by the excellent proprietary codec.
The GH5's are still the preferred tools for professional video applications, no doubt, especially where their dedicated features come in handy.

@Kharan
The A6500 can only shoot the lower resolution UHD 4K 8-bit video. Saying that is not true is really a lie. XAVC is really only Sony's proprietary version of H.264/MPEG-4. The CODEC is NOT as good as you claim. And 400Mbps is significatly better than the A6500's low 100Mbps.
The heat heating problem is real and nightmare too. The LCD screen has to dim to an unusable level so the camera doesn't overheat even faster.
It is funny the "roland" didn't mention that the LCD virtually shuts off during video. Good luck filming outdoors, LOL!!!
I did check with several people I know who shoot video, and they complained that Sony has the worst colors and skin tones. One guy does use the RX100 as tiny B camera, but says it is a pain to color grade.
No matter, the A6500 is not competitive when compared to real video ILCs.

Interesting. So 8bit Sony camera kicks everything else? With it's "amazing" color science I presume, and especially log in 8 bit. Would you be so kind as to enlighten everyone - just how much of color info is left in that 8bit 4:2:0 log footage? Isn't this one of the main reason for all those "amazingly" graded Sony a camera videos the web is flooded with? The real problem is the prevailing complete color blindness of the consumers nowadays.

NONE of you overheating lowres guys ever had a a6500 in his hands ;-)!
I hardly can breathe so much I´m laughing!!
The a6500 has the highest video resolution beside the a6300 but will probably be equaled by the a7III. All the rest including the a9 is somewhat lower (a9 has AA filter). NONE of the others do 6k oversampling! Go and compare yourself instead of talking nonsense, start simply watching the dpreview video stills. GH5 has much less resolving power and GH5s is full of artifacts.

Next the a6500 never had an overheating problem, that was only with the a6300, get better informed!
The GH5/s needs 400Mbps to fight with the noise these guys produce.
Watch some of the 10bit Panasonic vs 8bit Sony/Canon comparisons (e.g. Dave Dougdale) and realize that 10bit is only needed in a GH5/s, but is still beaten by cleaner 8bit a6500, a7s/r or C200 cameras.
AF is also weak without phase detection in tracking on the Panys.
Panasonic has 50p UHD, but doesn´t come any close to the 3D depth of a6500 recordings, nor the dynamic range nor the details nor ... the "IQ"!
Even if you upscale a6500 to DCI there is more detail where GH5/s is already noisy and "flat" at the base ISO!

@CaptainCrash: the display is getting dim in UHD, right, but have you ever tried to use the GH5 viewfinder from a gimbal?! Nicely done on the a6500, easily can access the viewfinder on the side and there I see much more than on the brighter GH5 "screen" in the sun!

IQ wise there is NO competition to the a6500 until the a7MIII reaches the shelves. Go and compare yourself instead of talking about specs that tell you nothing about IQ.

CaptainCrunchy: Have you *owned* an A6500? I have an A6300, which is even worse, supposedly. Yes, it gets warm to the touch, especially after recording in 1080 120 FPS for a while, but I've never had it fail me, even in full sun on a summer's day. Honestly, my RX100M4 gets way hotter after recording 4K.
Again, the 4K UHD is good enough, even in 2018. Seriously, the people who *need* 10-bit DCI should be able to afford something much more expensive.
The rear LCD is fine. I prefer to use the EVF myself, however. The dimming does happen, but is hardly as dramatic as you make it sound.
The A6500/6300 do the work of a GH5 for a lot of people, myself included, who need a more balanced hybrid solution. They're also significantly cheaper, so of course they don't compare favorably to dedicated cameras of 2x or 3x the price!

When attempting to shoot 4K with a6500, it blocks you from seeing what you are trying to shoot!!
Because of the big overheating problems, it virtually turns off the LCD, so that in good light it is unusable.
Sony's solution? Jam the VF to your face while walking around! LOL!!! Just don't trip and drop it in a puddle because (like most Sonys) it is not really weather sealed.
But the worst part, as every one who isn't paid by Sony can tell you, is the lousy proprietary codec that only gets 100Mbps in an 8-bit format. Often Sony video show bad posterization because it can't display as many colors (and the ones it does are kind of ugly).
Sadly, the A6500 also lacks decent controls and video features to be acceptable for video. No headphone jack, only one card slot (lousy old SDXC), etc. The A6500 doesn't even support USB3.0,UBS3.1, UHS-I or UHS-II, LOL!!!!
Even the old NX1 handily beats the A6500 for video and that old caemra has much better specs and support!!!

Off to the ignore list with you.

Ok, one last try: load the native videofiles from this site on the bottom:
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a7_iii_review/preview_images

These are 8bit 100Mbps XAVC files of the new a7III. Push these very hard in Resolve but don´t cry to much tears you wasted so much money on your 400Mbps 10bit noisy low DR/depth MFT BS.

And again yes, the a6500 has only 24p/25p (30p has little lower res, don´t care since I´m PAL) and slow rolling shutter and a dim display in UHD and no headphone jack - but IQ wise it´s running burning circles around any GH5/S - without any traces of overheating!!

To calm you down, my upcoming a7III doesn´t dim the display any more, has a headphone jack (I never needed), faster rolling shutter and will even be cleaner with even more DR and depth. Maybe I already get it next week.

I´m out here, Kindergarten! Go out and try a a6500 YOURSELF (avoid S-LOG, take Cine1) and we will never hear from you pushing a GH5 against it here again.
Start comparing resolution of the DPR videoscreenshots. If you´re "blind" start with the playing cards, there you even "feel" the resolving power of the a6300/a6500!!

Over...

You can keep crying but as DPR and so many other have show, the A6500 video is not as good as the GH5 or GH5s.
For the A6500...
LCD goes dark.
terrible rolling shutter
Colors are bad.
DR is bad
Bit rate is bad
Bit depth is bad
No 4K DCI
And lacking many features needed for video.

But this is obvious since most professionals refuse to consider the A6500 and rave about the GH5 and GH5s.

So again the fact is GH5 and GH5s look significantly better than washed out green/yellow cast A6500 video with bad posterization and terrible rolling shutter.
For YOU the BEST video would come from an RX100 or cheap camcorder. The too can shoot UHD 4K that looks overly sharp.

...you still think a MFT Sony sensor in a 3rd party camera (GH5) is better than a larger APS-C Sony sensor in the own camera?! Stay away of drugs - they show only wishful "virtual reality"!!

What about the native a7III files?!?! Still 8bit 100Mbps BS *LOL*?!?
Maybe a6500 was already to much unable to handle DR for you...

I think the hack doesn't work for 24p though :(

For videos .. go for Pany!
Don't be confused ... don't think twice!!
You don't need to ...
Reserve your dopamine for more important decisions making and in video
projects I can tell for sure .. you will need it!!
and also there is more than camera in videos .. lenses!!
for 4K resolution, even the worst, smallest tiny m43 lenses are top-notch!

Panasonic. The GH5s doesn't have any major issues in autofocus. I have the GH5s and the Canon 5div with DPAF, and while I am not saying the autofocus on Lumix is as good as in Canon I can clearly say that is not an impediment on my work. I have yet to see a vlogger on GH5s with the face out of focus or with the focus pulsating on the background.

Try them both. For me, it's an easy choice because of the menu system and handling of the Panasonic. The smaller bag size of smaller lens kit is another huge bonus. You can fit three MFT lens in the same bag that would only fit a single FF 70-200.

Video "Professionals" are into these low priced cameras because they are inexpensive. Actual professional filmmakers would chose Sony over Panasonic, in the more expensive variety. Then it becomes a comparison between Sony and Red and Alexa. Then it becomes a question of which one produces imagery that looks best subjectively. For me, the look of the Sony Cinealta looks the best and I prefer movies shot on real film. The Sonys looks closer to real film than the others...to me. For example look at the latest Woody Allen film, "Wonder Wheel" shot on Sonys...it's beautiful. All the tech talk in the world will not define beauty in filmmaking or the intangibles, the best filmmakers cared about.

If you have 0% clue about the subject better to keep mouth shut. Will annoy less people.

>>>If you have 0% clue about the subject better to keep mouth shut. Will annoy less people.

Many Indie cine shooters are using the GH5/GH5s as their B-roll camera, and this includes people shooting with RED cameras.

Here's one that used the GH5s as his A camera for an Indie short shot with Fuji cine lenses : https://vimeo.com/255921627

Superka...
Exactly...
I ended up with the Blackmagic and C200....
The GH5 was on my list for a while....
But that quirky autofocus blew it for me.....
The C200 has the best autofocus you can get in video....
It is really really sweet...
A lot of vloggers have switched from GH5 cameras to the C200...
And a lot of video guys, like Philip Bloom aren't too happy about the lack of IBIS in the GH5s...
Even Philip Bloom uses a C200 for his vlogs and seldom uses his GH5...
I love ignore....
I wish they'd put in news...
A certain person....
Is on my ignore list...
In the video forum...
Guess who?...
:=)

Superka ..
bec we are talking about hybrid cameras here not dedicated camcorders
and that's what this category is for!
simple, isn't it??

It's really just one guy as far as I can tell. Granted, he's commenting enough for an army.

I think you are right about the playstation thing. I would bet Sony, above any other brand, has the most dug in fanboyish followers. Maybe it's bc they have made so many things over the years?

I have wondered many times why, hard to know what the real answer is, but the most aggressive and offensive individuals seem to be from that one group.

So the answer is "no".

There are many! Voigtlander makes native lenses with stepless apertures and mechanical focusing as well as Rokinon and lots of others.

Yea i thought by saying there were some made for several systems it was obvious. What's most interesting is there are two people here questioning if MFT has them, one even saying "no", when a very quick B&H search for current lenses would answer the question for them.

I guess some people just really want the answer to be no. Not surprisingly, at least one of them has been seen in many Sony threads...

Most of the new video-centric Panasonic lenses feature a stepless aperture, but mechanical focusing is not something in Panasonic's lens design. Fortunately you can use almost ANY LENS EVER MADE with the GH5/GH5s cameras so you won't be missing out.

Veydra are high end native m4/3 cinema lenses if that is what you are after. You can mount just about any lens on m4/3 cameras.

The GH5S only has a 10MP sensor, so the sensor pixels are pretty big. That helps reduce noise and is a big part of the reason why it's so good for low-light work. Full-frame sensors are fine for video, but they're not necessary.

Most video pros would opt for the GH5s over ANY A7.
Why?
Because they can use the .7x speed booster and Sigma F/1.8 zooms as well as Canon F/1.2 primes. They also value DoF and the GH5s trounces all Sonys when DoF is equal. And when shooting a flat profile 8-bit video posterizes, while the Panasonic 10-bit video has beautiful color transitions. There are many more reasons, but that is just a few.

@virtualreality
I like your Blue Sky attitude.
Ignore overheating and 8-bit video. Claim that an F/2.8 zoom is better than and F/1.8 with a .7x speed booster. Forget that when DOF is equal, the GH5s crushes any A7 camera for video.

There's a 2 stop advantage to fullframe sensor size. That's why f/2.8 FF is equivalent to f/1.4 on m43.
Next Sony sensors have less noise compared to other companies.
You can record 10 bit to external recorder. However you can't increase sensor size.

Actually most of the video pros use Super35 or smaller sensor cameras because the affordable Full Frame sensor cameras have TERRIBLE rolling shutter distortion and require stopping down 2 additional F-Stops to achieve the SAME DOF as the Micro 4/3 format.

And as all the sites ahve shown there is no 2 stop advantage. It is either even in lower light or maybe about 1/3-1/2 a stop.
F1.8 zooms more that give the GH5s a big advantage as well as the speed boosters.
The REAL 2 stop advantage comes when shooting with the same DoF. Then the GH5s DOES have a 2 stop advantage.

Actually, I think you’ve got that backwards... the GH5S with it vastly superior low light capabilities will be a better camera for less skilled hybrid guys.... the gh5 needs good
Light or lighting... the s far less so.... and it’s that flexibility that puts it ahead in real world conditions.

I still think that for most use cases the GH5 is better. The lack of image stabilization in the GH5S means that it's worse than the GH5 in any situation where the camera isn't mounted to something that can provide stability. Situations where the camera is mounted on a gimbal or tripod are relatively rare—most people don't use that stuff, and even the people who do use it don't use it all the time. So the GH5 is the better camera for most people and most situations.

The GH5S is too specialized to be considered the overall best in my opinion, even though it does offer better video quality and more features. DPR says the GH5 is better for run-and-gun, but the fact is that in the real world *most* videography is run-and-gun. Even if you're someone who uses gimbals for some of their shooting, you'd still be better off with only a GH5 than only a GH5S; who uses a gimbal 100% of the time?

GH5 and GH5s are too different cameras. If you mainly shoot low light / dark, then GH5s is best fit, otherwise GH5 would be fine.
Being said, IBIS in GH5 is convenient for run and gun type of filming where you can't bring monopod/tripod. However, in any case, I believe gimbal (something like zhiyun crane) provides better stabilized footage.

I have tried both GH5 and GH5s and IMO, I prefer to use gimbal whenever I can.

So for most wedding videographers, they will use GH5 or (and) GH5s on gimbal anyway,

Your main point of refference are Max Yuryev's reviews. I don't think you ever held a GH5 in your hands. The fact that you use hyperbolic ecpressions, like "sends them to the moon " shows your lack of self esteem and the need to be loud and biased. A6500 is one of the most terribly ergonomically cameras out there. It is a 12000 dollars camera on Ebay, and that is exactly what is worth it.

Yeah, 8bit UHD is better than 10 bit DCI...

Said no one who knew what they were talking about ever...

Dynamic range is the same btw. Shooting in log on both models gives you 14 stops.

You guys seem to have NO clue what you are talking about ;-) - what about the mushy UHD video screen shots of the GH5s here on dpreview, compare them to the a6500 and then come back.

Show me one single test showing the GH5s video DR is 14 stops, even the Varicams hardly reach that.
That´s even not possible since V-LOG L doesn´t support that. Only V-LOG from the Varicam goes that far.
12EV on the GH5/GH5s is more realistic in comparison to about 13.5EV on the a6500.
BTW S-LOG2/3 isn´t the best option on the Sony, tuned Cine1 is.
Sounds far from practise here...

For comparison you may also check Dave Dougdale´s 10bit GH5 vs. 8bit a6500 test. a6500 wins but this will equal with the GH5s that is a bit cleaner.
10bit makes real sense on a7S/II or from what I have seen on native video samples of the a7III.
With all these noisy cameras there is hardly any benefit of 10bit.

Also check back noise in stills of GH5/S vs. a6500/a7SII/a7RIII. There you get an idea of the quality of that sensor.

Dude what are you talking about. You're gonna take some online videos that have a lot of compression applied to them already, and use that as your standard?

Look if you think Sony is better that's cool man. But specs don't lie. I've shot on both camera's and know what the capabilities are.

@Roland
Not to mention high ISO, micro FT fails to deliver at this.
So you can't use GH5s as allround camera.

virtualreality what the heck are you talking about? The GH5S excels at low-light videography, that's one of the main reasons why it exists. That's what the "S" signifies. I like Sony, am a Sony shooter, and agree that Sony makes good video cameras, but the GH5S is a seriously good video camera. It just is; it's a major, video-centric redesign of what was already one of the best video cameras available and it's pretty great. I'm not in the market for a camera like this but I recognize an awesome piece of gear when I see it.

GH5 is only slightly better than its m43 peers. Compared to APS-c and fullframe, it's a mess.
http://www.4kshooters.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/A7III_vs_A7RIII_vs_A6500_vs_GH5_04.jpg

virtualreality, all I can say is that I hope Sony is paying you well for your many, many comments on this article. If you're doing this for free, that's embarassing. Stanning for a megacorp is pathetic.

A6500 has overheating problems...
A6500 has rolling-shutter problems...
A6500 has limited recording time problems...
A6500 can't simultaneously record 2 copies at once...
A6500 can't record in relay mode for unlimited time shooting...
A6500 has 11 stops of dynamic-range at ISO 2500, where the GH5s has 12 stops of dynamic-range at ISO 2500...
A6500 battery barely lasts one hour. GH5 battery can last 3+ hours...
A6500 5-axis stabilization can't stabilize walking shots, GH5 can...
A6500 does not support 10-bit recording so HDR shooting is compromised...
A6500 does not support 400 Mbps recording...

Yeah, but you can buy a complete system around an A6500 for the price of a GH5s :D
Seriously, it's ludicrous to raise all of those niggles against a camera that: 1) is much better in stills; 2) is much smaller and lighter; and 3) costs 50% less. Talk about apples versus oranges.

>>>Seriously, it's ludicrous to raise all of those niggles against a camera that:
>>>1) is much better in stills;
>>>2) is much smaller and lighter
>>>3) costs 50% less. Talk about apples versus oranges.

I mostly make my living shooting video, but I have been thinking about buying a Nikon D850 for still photo work. I originally started my career in large format photography back in the pre-digital days, but I really like what I've seen from the D850, even the 4K video it produces is not bad.

So for me...

1) I would rather buy a D850 for still photo work.
2) the GH5 body size is perfect for me
3) I use this for work, so cost is not as important

The main thing for me is the video quality a camera produces, and right now none of the Sony hybrid cameras offer the features of the GH5/GH5s.

There's even a low cost color LUT that will imitate ARRI ALEXA color from GH5 10-bit footage: http://emotivecolor.com/in-depth.html?v=1.1

Great. If you can blow a further $3,500 on a high-end stills camera, plus the cost of the necessary lenses, you'll certainly get the best of both worlds.
But most of us aren't willing to commit that amount of money to photography, or simply can't. And then, the $1,300 price of the A6500 seems like a screaming bargain, when it does extremely good video anyway, and is still superior to both GH5's in stills.

GH5S is not a hybrid like Gh5. a hybrid must have good stills capability. 10Mpx and no IBIS is not even comparable stills spec wise with cheaper m43 peers. But GH5s is better video/camcorder compared to GH5 except for the IBIS thing.
Pana may want to call GH5S a hybrid but for me that is a big BS from Pana. it's a ILC camcorder, spec wise. I wouldn't even consider GH5S if I want a hybrid m43... it'll be either GH5 or G9 if it's going to be a Pana.

"A6500 has overheating problems..." - After 1 year shooting in warm whether never add any issue.
A6500 has rolling-shutter problems... " -GH5 preforms better, but still no global shutter
A6500 has limited recording time problems..." - There is a fix that
A6500 can't simultaneously record 2 copies at once..." - True, but can take a single copie with proper AFC
A6500 has 11 stops of dynamic-range at ISO 2500, where the GH5s has 12 stops of dynamic-range at ISO 2500... - GH5 and gh5s are 2 separate cameras! The a6500 has better DR than GH5 - A7sII has better DR than GH5s!
A6500 battery barely lasts one hour. GH5 battery can last 3+ hours... - True, 5 cheap batteries and 2 chargers. solved
A6500 5-axis stabilization can't stabilize walking shots, GH5 can... a6500 has IBIS GH5s does NOT.
A6500 does not support 10-bit recording so HDR shooting is compromised/no 400 Mbps recording... compressed 10bit 400Mbps is not raw anyway

@audione

There are a dozen orso other A6500 massive flaws including an unusable LCD. Not being able to pull focus via the LCD and so on,
I owned one for a month and it over heated TWICE making it a useless brick for while. It is NOT weather sealed at all - you can see a gap in the battery compartment when the door is shut!
What I find hilarious is Sony fans are saying that since 400Mbps 10-bit video is quite as good as RAW, we all settle for 100Mbps with a crappy proprietary 8-bit codec. And even funnier they say they like to change batteries while taking video - how does that work again?? LOL!!!!!!

>>>A6500 has rolling-shutter problems... " - GH5 preforms better, but still no global shutter

Rolling Shutter Speed Test Results Shooting 4K 30p

GH5s : 11.9 ms
FS7 : 15.0 ms
C300 : 16.0 ms
A7R3 : 22.8 ms
A7S2 : 30.4 ms
A6500 : 39.0 ms

The Panasonic GH5s has lower rolling shutter than both the Sony FS7 and Canon C300 cine cameras when shooting 4K 30p video.

>>>A6500 has limited recording time problems..." - There is a fix that

There is a camera hack that can unofficially disable the time limit.

>>>A7sII has better DR than GH5s!

Actually is does not. At ISO 2500 the A7SII has 11 stops of dynamic range, where the GH5s has 12 stops of dynamic range.

None of your favorite movies where shot with cameras that had built in ND filters. No AF either.

It's DPreview's bias against Sony.
They refused to add Sony video lens to their database.

@ozt
Is 10 bits required for recording noisy images?

Virtualreality, please do not comment if you don't know what is 4:2:2 10bit's advantage from your comfy sofa.

Eric: It will actually depend on the type of production you run, but honestly, the A9 really doesn't qualify for the category (it has no Picture Profiles, sadly).
Right now, the winner seems to be the X-H1 for newbies/run n' gun/vlogging and any production where results SOOC are preferred.
The A7M3 will easily become the best cinema camera on a budget, thanks to pleasing output, great low-light performance and excellent DoF control, and all of this with enough features to operate as a professional tool.
However, the GH5/s are serious, broadcast-grade camcorders at a very affordable price. Their AF is inferior to the Sony and Fuji options, but the amount of features they pack and their spectacular sampling are unmatched at this price level. So it makes sense that they get the award for video-oriented shooters.

>>>Is 10 bits required for recording noisy images?

Nope, but it IS required to shoot HDR video...

That is one of the worse answer I ever received and I'm an active programmer on stack overflow also. Moreover already 3 likes. THAT'S COMPLETELY INSANE how people are IGNORANT. The number of bits has totally no connection with high dynamic range at all. The number of bits ONLY tell how many tone (differences) you will get between 2 colors. Some factors that could impact dynamic range are: the sensor, how it is sensible or not, the analog to digital converter (how it is built and used) to retrieve the sensor values. That converter will produce bits 8 or 10 or anything else but although the number of values will be different (with higher or lower resolution), it is not what will give you better high dynamic range, it is the lowest and highest possibilities of values that the converter can give you that will determine DR. There is no connection between the lowest and highest value of a converter and the step it could generate (10bits smaller steps, hi res, but invisible to an eye).

Eric: I am not a videographer but like to take photos. RAW files have even higher bit depths than 10 bit (12 bit on mFT, 14bit on GH5sand most FF cameras). For viewing and even printing 8bit is enough. But as soon as you edit your files (grading, push contrast/brightness, ...) 8bit files are limited. Having 8bit files AFTER grading/RAW development will be fine.
And that probably is why 10bit is "needed" for HDR: you need the flexibility to achieve the final look from an unedited file.

fft2000 hit the nail on the head. 8-bit is fine for viewing on standard DR TVs and monitors. It's probably not terrible on HDR monitors that can show brighter whites and hence a greater range of tones between white and black.

However, particularly for Log footage, 8-bit isn't an ideal intermediary state. Log footage (or, at least, the Log region of the curve) broadly speaking redistributes the data so that each stop of light is given the same number of the available values, to maximise the ability to grade it. If the curve tries to cram too much DR into those available values, they end up too thinly spread, which results in posterization when you then try to grade some contrast back into it.

Even for playback on standard DR devices, 8-bit Log footage will much more readily show posterization in skies than 10-bit will. If you're then trying to grade for an HDR display (which is only likely to become more common), this problem is further exaggerated.

@fft2000, @LingoDingo, @RichardButler, Wow, great point. Having more info when editing and/or boosting values should make sense. I should "abdicate". For editing it makes sense. I missed that point. Modifying values with higher resolution definitively translate to less quality loss. I also understand that internal camera transformation of raw image will also benefits from higher bit count per pixel. I fully agree. Thanks a lots!!!!

Eric Ouellet - You're right in that, unlike linear Raw data (which does act as a limit on how much of the system's DR you can preserve), bit-depth doesn't directly relate to DR.

However, because Log footage is shot with the intention of subsequent processing, sharing 256 values between, say 12 stops of DR and sharing them between 8 gives you files with very different degrees of scope for processing.

It's comparable with the idea that 8-bit JPEGs are well suited to final output (in print or standard DR devices, at least). But if you tried shooting a JPEG that was significantly different from your final rendering intent (ie very low contrast, to maximise the DR retained), you'd have to aggressively change the contrast and risk the lower precision of 8-bit being highlighted.

Edit in response to your last post: Thank you for considering other perspectives and for acknowledging them. It's a rare quality on the Internet.

I dunno, I would be kinda surprised if it didn't have that feature. I expect the A7SIII to be a beast of a video camera. I don't know if it will be better than the GH5S, but I expect Sony will really try to push the boat out. They know how to make video cameras, and they know what they're up against. They're an innovative company with some great technology and a growing reputation for listening to the needs of their customers and addressing them. 10-bit 4k video is something people clearly want in a high-end, video-oriented camera. Sony presumably has people scanning this forum (and lots of other ones) and they'll be doing active research as well, talking to videographers and photographers and asking about what they want to see in the A7SIII. They clearly care about this market segment, which is smart because it's a growing one. 10-bit 4k 4:2:2 video doesn't sound like much of a reach.