I think I am the only person that actually likes the fact that the gh4 records lesser quality in cam (for quick shooting and less cost and processing) then better quality for more advanced uses (long film with lots of CC and 10bit).

H265 would be amazing for gh5, as long as we still have hdmi high quality. Allows modular approach.

Also many times you need large monitor anyway, so no problem.

Look at a7s - that camera became very popular for 4K and couldn't record in-cam 4K. That didn't stop anyone from connecting a shogun!

Problem is: h265 is processor intensive and probably will need transcode before editing.

4K h264 can edit easy without transcode to intermediate codec.

They can do lots of things...

422, 10bit, multiaspect sensor with 12mp for better low light and better shallow dof, organic sensor for better DR, 320Mbps, 16-235 to keep luminance inside 0-100 ire, ...

But for the enough prosumer quality, the 4k 8bit at 160Mbps would be enough to remove the compression artifacts and keep the datarate working in average cards like sandisk 30 and 45.

They need to increase 4k datarate to at least 160Mbps.

@caveport sounds like a nice camera!

I'm sure NAB 2017 will be year of Raw MF video.

I have GH4. I switched to m43 for certain philosofical/doctrinary reason. When I see how much hopes and expactations people have about GH5, and how entangled they are in specs, makes me very sad because I feel like they miss the whole point of invention of m43 and they are ignorant of reality around them...

My predictions? GH5 will be different from GH4 as much as GH3 was different to GH2. Almost Meaningless. Again, I am afraid, users swallowed the bait that was thrown by decision board comitties of higher managments in corporations. Panasonic issues a high end Pro camera and the native lens mount on it is - EF! (Wtf?!!?!?!?!) Thats how much panasonic believes in themselves and thier own m43 format. And they gonna put a new carrot on us to keep us obedient and hipnotized for a bit more: Higher megacound and slow mo but 420 or Raw but iso that sucks or batteries and card drainage beynd point. Or great iso but DR 9,5 stops. And so on...

In other words, for people like me (semi/pro camera owner/shooter), we have to look for switching to some other systems because GH5 will be not good enough because their owner/producer can not be trusted.

My GH4 already beats my A7s in everyway except low light performance.

GH5 has to compete with a7s territory to be taken seriously and sell units from now on. I would not be surprised at all if Panasonic has had to go back to the drawing board for the GH5. (purely my speculation, but would make sense- especially as to the confusion from Panny reps)

Panasonic really does need to go back to the drawing board, deliver a camera with huge dynamic range, lovely colour, low light capability, and able to record in high quality (even if external).

Oh, and maybe 6k.

Crazy demands right?

I think going to the Panny websites and looking for contact info, especially for sales/marketing people at this point. Matt Frazier for much of the US is I think the guy.

From discussions at NAB, which I'm just leaving ... at my gate 3 hours early, not that I'm eager to get out of Vegas ... I would expect that they'll have a lot more info and maybe demo model for PhotoKina, but not roll out "real" GH5 until CES next January.

I would note ... as several of the Panny reps responded at NAB today ... while they haven't seen finalized lists of features/options for the GH5 yet (or several other cams) ... they suggested that expecting roll-outs for Photokina this fall was likely for most, & CES in January for others. So ... speculate away.

Also ... as far as 10-bit recording in-cam: that would require a bit of work, and now that there are a number of moderate cost external recorders that do that, there's not as much pressure on them as one might think. Perhaps the users should communicate this interest to Panny?

I think my interests would be ...

1) wider DR sensor; 2) internal 10-bit recording.

@Tron: Given that all the "4k" camera sensors only have about 1/3 of the number of pixels that "4k" displays have, upscaling a little more wouldn't make things that much worse. Let's not forget that camera manufacturers count 1 red + 1 green + 1 blue pixel as "3 pixels", while displays have at least 3 colored sub-pixels for each of the 3840x2160 pixels they display.

If you aim at recording independent values for each of your 3840x2160 display pixels, you would need a camera with at least 24883200 "pixels as counted by camera manufacturers".

Hello, Maybe add the new protocol Newtek (NDI network device interface) and a network connection (RJ45...). Phab