Hi, I use a Sony AX100 for my 4K ethnic documentaries around the world. The next month I'd like to replace my Sony AX100 with Panasonic GH5 and I'd like to ask some questions:

1) I don't take pictures but video only. In your opinion will I make an error to buy GH5 for my documentaries? I'm not expert in cameras and I'm afraid to make an error because a camera is not so immediate and fast like a videocamera to shot. Can you give me some info please?

2) I think GH5 comes with a 12-60 mm object. Can you tell me how much is a 12-60 mm focal compared to a videocamera focal (precisely)?

3) Has Panasonic GH5 a better steadyshot than Sony AX100?

4) I don't make videos about animals, therefore I don't need a very long focal but I also don't like a very short focal. What is your opinion? Which object could be ok for me?

5) I sometime will use the camera by automatic mode. Does automatic white balance give good videos? Are there some grey filter like in the videocameras?

6) Sad note: I read UHD 3840 × 2160p at 30fps, 24fps. uhhhhhhhhhhh Has a such camera not a 50 fps? It is incredible really but maybe I read badly.

7) Is it very hard to use the zoom with GH5?
thanks

The ax100 has a 35mm equiv focal length of 29–348mm, a 12-60mm on a gh5 has a 24-120mm 35mm equiv focal length (not considering any extra cropping that might be going on but I believe that is not the case with the gh5 but anyone may correct me if I"m wrong.) so it's a bit wider but has a lot less reach.

The advantage though is that a gh5 will give you the choice to add a lens that is specific for your needs, if you want a ultrawide, macro, super-tele, zoom, primelens, there hardly doesn't exist a lens that doesn't fit the gh5, either native or with an adapter.

The gh5 has much better lensstabilization then the ax100.

The choice of a lens depends on more then one factor, do you want the ease of use of a zoomlens? Do you shoot a lot in places with low light? Is a shallow dof important?

Some things to consider:

The gh5 is more difficult to use then the ax100, first of all, if you find autofocus important then forget about the gh5, the autofocus suxs, it's just too unreliable to use when you need critical focus.

Lenses for the gh5 are as far as I am aware of not parfocal, I don't know if that is the case with the ax100 but if your intention is to zoom in, manual focus and zoom out and then expect the lens to still hold focus then it's better to get a videocamera that has this ability.

Smooth zooming during a shot is also very difficult, you can do some quick zooms to reframe but doing a very slow creeping zoom is nearly impossible.

Forget about changing the exposure without seeing the exposure jumps in steps unless you get lenses that have a declicked iris. Personally I don't like this because if you shoot with a fast prime, like a f1.4 lens and lets say the lens has a declicked and smooth turning iris ring, when you turn that ring and close the iris down to f5.6 you will very clearly see the dof change. That's not what you want to see in a continuous shot.

The gh5 gives me much more flexibility then the ax100 especially with it's lenschoices and the image generally also looks better, especially in low light but the ax100 is a much easier camera to operate in fast changing environments.

Edit: I just see you added some questions :)

The gh5 will shoot 4K at 50or 60fps

about automatic whitebalance, I have read about users saying it has a good autowb, I personally never use auto anything, I whitebalance using a expodisc and I also use a tungsten or outdoor preset if needed.

I think Noa's observations about the GH5 are right on.

But let me summarize two important points:

If you zoom while shooting, do not get the GH5.

If you use autofocus, do not get the GH5.

Also, if you want to improve low light by a lot over the AX100, do not get the GH5.

If you really need 4K60P, get the GH5

If you really need 4K 10bit, 4:2:2, get the GH5.

If the first three disqualifies the GH5, and the last two are not what you need, then consider getting the Sony A6500, with near parfocal, constant-aperture lenses, like the 18-105 (you can zoom while shooting) and great AF (DPAF), and better low-light performance than the GH5 and much better than the AX100.

Also, if you want to improve low light by a lot over the AX100, do not get the GH5.


That's the only part I don't agree with, it also depends what you understand by "a lot", one thing I know from shooting with both camera's during weddings is that the ax100 can produce some pretty bad looking noise at higher iso's, so bad actually that I often had to use neatvideo to make it look decent.
For the gh5 however I never had to use neatvideo and I personally find the difference in low light performance with a fast lens like a f1.4 very noticeable, I can easily shoot candle light dinners with my gh5 but I can't with the ax100.

That's the only part I don't agree with, it also depends what you understand by "a lot", one thing I know from shooting with both camera's during weddings is that the ax100 can produce some pretty bad looking noise at higher iso's, so bad actually that I often had to use neatvideo to make it look decent.
For the gh5 however I never had to use neatvideo and I personally find the difference in low light performance with a fast lens like a f1.4 very noticeable, I can easily shoot candle light dinners with my gh5 but I can't with the ax100.

I agree that the AX100 is no low-light performer. But, sure, with an f1.4 lens *at* f1.4, you will do much better than the AX100 (if you could put the f1.4 lens on the AX100 you would do much better too). But shooting documentaries at f1.4, given the shallow DOF, is not easy and focusing in dim light - I cannot imagine. The DR and the low-light performance of an APS-C camera is just going to be better than the GH5.

The GH5 is without peers for 4K60P and for heavy grading (422, 10bit); it's IQ is good too. It's lenses are compact, relatively. Those are very real advantages for a seasoned, serious videographer. But if those first two advantages are unimportant, the GH5 has severe shortcomings for run and gun shooting - no zoom, no reliable AF. One can shoot great video without the latter two (I am quite happy with my Z E1, which has neither) with work. But someone going from a camcorder to a GH5 is going to be really disappointed.

To support Noa and Mark. The GH5 is NOT a camcorder replacement for the AX100. It has no automatic features one is used to on a camcorder. It has suburb video but one has to work for it. I use mine as an unattended full stage camera in shooting theatre. I control with the image app from a tablet, have it set up with a gain limit ( iso 1600 ), shutter priority 1/60, auto gain, and use AE shift to taste !!! It is the closest one can get to automatic operation ( camera is automatically managing gain smoothly ) close to the way I ran my Sony's in this role and it works very well shooting UHD 60P.

I suggest you look not only at the new Sony camcorders, AX700, HXR-NX80 but also the Canon GX10 or XF400 that would also shoot UHD 60/60P and have a better wide angle zoom than the Sony's.

Is there a reason you ask about the GH5 ? My reason was UHD60P, fixed application with no zooming required always on a tripod. It is still the lowest cost way of getting this. The XF400 is now close but only 8bit too.

Thanks for your pleasant replies. My priorities are (descending order):
1) Higher video quality, better than Sony AX100 (noticeable)
2) Good performance as with high light as with low light
3) Very good AF
4) Compactness and lightness of the body
5) The use of the zoom even if I use it very little.
6) UHD 50p or 60P
I can use as a camera or as a videocamera but it must have all those options.

If all of your priorities are a must then I would recommend a Canon c200.

Also, why is 4k 50p so important? Do you plan on slowing down your footage a lot? If you are satisfied with 4K 25p you get a lot more camera's to choose from that meet your priorities.

Yes, 50p is important for me because I sometimes shot running subjects and almost always without tripod.
If I have to be sincere I don't like that abortion of Canon C200. ;)

If the c200 is not something you want to consider then the camera you want doesn't exist so you need to rethink your priorities, camera's that shoot 4K50p are mostly in the 5K + range and the gh5 is the only exception unless you want to go with very small sensor point and shoot camera's like a gopro that can do 4K50P.
Also shooting action or running subjects just requires a different shootingstyle, all action films in cinema are shot in 24p and it has never bothered me that they aren't in 48, 50 or 60p.

Also shooting action or running subjects just requires a different shootingstyle, all action films in cinema are shot in 24p and it has never bothered me that they aren't in 48, 50 or 60p.

I'm sure you use a tripod for your shoots, try your 25p camera with freehand shooting.

I shoot weddings handheld 90% of the entire day in 4K 25p. I do use tripods but those are for my other camera's. My main camera is handheld almost all day.

First the GH5 with 12-60 lens is bigger and heavier than the AX100. It has the advantage in your situation of being more rugged than the AX100. I do not think its auto focus is as good for video as the AX100. I always use in manual and touch focus on the LCD just like I do with the AX100.

I can see why you may want UHD50P as I like the smooth motion of 60P ( not to slow down ) and shooting in this form gives the advantage of being able to playback in lots of formats where with 25P or 30P that is all you have to play with.

It can shoot with more dynamic range if you take the time to learn and shoot in VlogL No need to zoom if you edit to HD as one can zoom almost 4:1 in editing from a 50P UHD to HD. You are back with 25P in camera if you want to shoot HLG for instance as you would external recorder to get 50PUHD HLG..

I am not sure the GH5 is that much better in low light than the AX100, noticable but neither is stellar in really low light. They both work fine in my theatre shoots. You would need variable ND filter for the lens as there are none in camera.

The GH5 is great camera but it is not a replacement for a point and shoot video camera.

I understand!! GH5 is not for me. I need to buy a better videocamera than AX100 but a small videocamera like it. I think there are'nt videocameras with a really better image quality than AX100.

I think your quality issues have more to do with your setup or lack of. If you want to show up to someone’s house with a consumer camera and use little to no setup with existing light you’re going to be limited by the amount of quality you’ll be able to achieve. When a subject is properly light they look good with most any camera. If you’re comparing your quality to what you see on tv... they have an experienced crew with cameras costing more than $15k

I am not sure the GH5 is that much better in low light than the AX100, noticable but neither is stellar in really low light.

What lens do you use on your GH5? The difference in low light performance is considerable if you use a f1.4 lens, if you use a 12-60 zoomlens that is f4 at the longest reach then ofcourse there is not that much difference.

I have come to this thread rather late and I am surprised at the overall view that you cannot zoom with a GH5. Surely the ability to hold focus during a zoom is dependent on the lens and not the camera? The lens has to be parfocal and very importantly set up at the correct distance from the sensor. My stills camera (Nikon D300) died suddenly recently and I have replaced it with a GH5. I now have 2 zoom lenses for it, the Leica 12-60 mm, f2.8 and the M-Zuiko 40-150 mm, f2.8. My preliminary tests indicate that both these lenses are parfocal. Also at one stage I had a GH4 and a Nikon mount Sigma 18-35. This lens was parfocal on my Nikon but initially non-parfocal when used with the GH4 by means of a cheap Nikon /MFT adapter. To correct the problem I combined a couple of cheap adapters to make one that was deliberately too long. I then laboriously shortened it on my lathe by removing 0.0005” at a time reassembled it and tested it with an auto collimator. I repeated the process several times until parfocality was achieved.

When I zoom in with my 40-150, lock focus and zoom out slowly I see that the lens is loosing focus at the start of the zoom and I see that it does correct after that, this is a behavior I have never experienced with any of my videocamera's that had a fixed parfocal lens, eventhough there is some correction going on with some lenses to make it appear parfocal one cannot expect to buy a dslr and some zoomlenses that are designed for photography and expect all to behave like a real parfocal lens, something to keep in mind when you transition from video to photocamera's. Also doing controlled zooms can also be difficult and depends on how smooth the zoomring and doing controlled variable speed zoom is nearly impossible.

Almost all new camcorders with fixed lenses have the ability to slow controlled power zoom and certainly with auto focus will hold focus completely. Doing this manually with a GH5 is almost impossible. So if this sort of action is needed then not something that is going to work well. However shooting in UHD and then zooming and panning in post can be much smoother and more controlled than doing it manually. That is how I use my GH5 too.

Yes Noa using my 12-60 set at about 18mm to fill stage ( about f3.3 max ) is a little better than the AX100 but not startling better for low light. It has a lot more dynamic range so does manage the stage lights noticeably better. However my goal is to get everything on the stage front to back in focus so having a lens wide open would also not be what I want. I am after max depth of field ( I know, opposite of what a lot of people want from the camera ).

Only cinema lenses are truly parfocal by their physical design. For these other lenses the camera is using software to auto correct to simulate parfocal. The 12-60 is variable aperture and a bit slow.

To summarize what has been said, succinctly.

Zooms on camcorders have two advantages, not one:

1. Parfocal - no slip in focus or refocus while zooming.

2. Power zoom, variable speed, for smooth zooming.

There are NO lenses for mft cameras that can do 1 and 2.

On the other hand, there are power-zoom, essentially parfocal zoom lenses available for Sony mirrorless cameras. And the A6500 AF is far better than that for any Panasonic.

I do not get why anyone would consider Panasonic cameras who wants a camcorder experience (there are very good reasons to choose them for video other than that).

If you want a bigger sensor, excellent 4K, power zooming, and excellent AF ..look at Sony.

But none of them do 50/60P UHD GH5 is the only one to do that and that is why I have it. 4K for me is 60P so none of the Sony's do that. Well the FS7 does but that is different range I think.

Yes Noa using my 12-60 set at about 18mm to fill stage ( about f3.3 max ) is a little better than the AX100 but not startling better for low light.

I think you should always mention f-stops when you say there is not much difference in low light performance because otherwise you are providing misleading info that makes it appear that a gh5 can't do much better then a 4year old ax100 in low light.
That f1.4 or faster lenses might not work for you for stageperformances I can understand but it is at least an option if you need to shoot in very dark places, the difference between f1.4 or faster lens and f3.3 can mean having a usable or unusable shot which is an advantage you can have with a gh5 but not with the ax100. The gh5 can shoot in low light conditions the ax100 can't.

Yes agreed, the advantage the GH5 has is one can change the lens for a faster one. With similar iris values the GH5 advantage over a 1" sensor like the AX100 though is not that big. Pixel size and noise reduction starts to play a role too.

What it really goes to show is that what you are filming and how you want to film should determine what camera you use. People common complaint is this camera is terrible in low light. The follow up question that comes up compared to what? A camcorder is terrible vs micro 4/3 but a micro 4/3 is terrible compared to full frame. But in video there are many factors other than low light performance that are just as important so we can go round and dissecting the technical aspects but without knowing the intended use and style of the original poster it’s quite pointless.

You can look at Adriano's WEB site to see the sort of video he shoots. He travels light I am sure since these places are remote. I think to improve over his current work will require more effort than an automatic camera . In focus and well exposed the AX100 produces nice video. Not sure what improvements he is looking for in a new camera. However one that is easy to use in his environment is the issue for him. I think he has to decide whether he wants the convenience of a camcorder or the control in a higher end camera with multiple lenses etc. He has not raised the issue of whether he is trying to meet a spec for sale of his video for instance which would have a definite influence on equipment choice both for video and audio.

but a micro 4/3 is terrible compared to full frame

That again is not always correct, "full frame" does not automatically mean a lot better low light performance, the canon 5dmark2 also can shoot video yet it won't outperform a panasonic gh5, a canon 5d mark 3 or 4 could also be considered "terrible" low light performers when compared to a sony a7s yet both are full frame camera's.

There is more to it then just having a full frame sensor that determines a camera low light performance.

That again is not always correct, "full frame" does not automatically mean a lot better low light performance, the canon 5dmark2 also can shoot video yet it won't outperform a panasonic gh5, a canon 5d mark 3 or 4 could also be considered "terrible" low light performers when compared to a sony a7s yet both are full frame camera's.

There is more to it then just having a full frame sensor that determines a camera low light performance.
I could have said the A7 but I didn’t want to ruffle your feathers. ;-)

My beef is with people who make unqualified statements about this camera is good or bad. Then compare it to something that is older or more expensive or completely different category of camera. So if you want talk about the latest 5d vs the A7 then great similar sensor, price and style sure let’s do that. Otherwise it’s a bit like saying hammer is better than a screwdriver or a sports car is better than a suv.

You can look at Adriano's WEB site to see the sort of video he shoots. He travels light I am sure since these places are remote. I think to improve over his current work will require more effort than an automatic camera. In focus and well exposed the AX100 produces nice video. Not sure what improvements he is looking for in a new camera. However one that is easy to use in his environment is the issue for him. I think he has to decide whether he wants the convenience of a camcorder or the control in a higher end camera with multiple lenses etc. He has not raised the issue of whether he is trying to meet a spec for sale of his video for instance which would have a definite influence on equipment choice both for video and audio.
You seldom can have everything you want. He has to decided what he really needs. Might have to live without the zoom to get the other advantages and learn to use a more complex camera. There are more fully featured professionals camcorders but they don’t perform that much better in low light until you spend a boat load more cash on something like the FS7.

edit: I looked at his videos and they seem fine. Most of them are outdoors with plenty of light but inside the huts a dslr/mirrorless would provide better low light performance. I can see why he wants compact and easy to use. I’d also be leary of using anything that’s not weather sealed or expensive without insurance or swapping lenses in jungle conditions like that. He also does a lot of hand held so stabilizing would be important.

I think any camera without a viewfinder would be difficult to film in the sun. Honestly I would keep the ax100 for outdoor and get a dslr/mirrorless for indoors. Although i’m not sure the gains would warrant the cost and hassle of two separate cameras.

The GH5 is weather sealed so fits that requirement and outdoors he does not use really long zooms but to get better inside the huts would require a lens change as Noa points out to a fast wide lens. So I think a GH5 system would be at least 2 lenses and variable ND filter for the outdoor lens. Not quite a point and shoot system. The GH5 has the advantage of under controlled conditions one can set up and save all the settings to C1,2 3 etc so only a twist of the control wheel will get all the settings previously set up. Maybe the new GH5S or whatever it is going to be called may fit the bill even with a 12-60 lens. We will find that out on the 8th Jan.

I don't sell my videos. They are all for me. I like to be a field operative guy. Sometimes I make public video projections. I need a good image quality and to get the best video with my budget. Sometime I am able to do it but sometime it is very hard for me. My trips are so hard and sometime my mind pulses messing with a lot of tiredness and with hot weather. Recenttly I forgot to activate ND filter on my AX100 and I got a bad video. My thecinique and my bad method sometime let me to shot good videos but sometimes also bad videos.
I know that I should learn more about my AX100 to allow me to configure better my videocamera. I understand it but I like all my focus to be above all on my trip. For this reason I like to shot in Auto mode especially because I don't have sufficient time to take some points in their life that run fast in those villages.
I know there are no cameras that work well without config. them. For example some days ago I had to shot black people on the orange earth in Africa at 1:00 pm. It was very hard for me and for my camera.
But now I know I have to change my mind.
I thank you for your suggestions.

PS: I have just watched these 2 videos on Internet. They are about GH5 autofocus. In your opinion are they real info?
GH5 vs A6500 Autofocus Comparison - 4K & 1080P - YouTube
GH5 Firmware V2.0 Autofocus - Did it improve? Panasonic GH5 Autofocus Test and V1 Comparison - YouTube

My beef is with people who make unqualified statements about this camera is good or bad.

That was the reason why I reacted to your "micro 4/3 is terrible compared to full frame" comment unless I misunderstood you, "full frame" alone does not automatically mean better low light performance compared to smaller sensor size camera's, if that alone was the reason all full frame cameras would perform equally.

In your opinion are they real info
Yes this is reliable info, as said before by others including me, the gh5 doesn't have reliable autofocus and would be useless in your case, that's why you need to find another camera since autofocus seems to be a keyfeature for your purpose . Your "must have" option list will have to be adjusted, you can't have it all without either pay the price with a camera like a canon c200 or loose a few options like having no 4K50p but have good autofocus (sony a6500) or bad autofocus and 4K50p (gh5).
Also consider that autofocus with a a6500 could also be hit and miss, especially with fast lenses, the shallower your dof becomes the more trickier focussing will become and the autofocus system can be fooled as well.

If I was in your situation I would stay with smaller sensor and handicam like camera's, sony had their ax100 succesor announced recently (don't know the exact name of the camera) but from what I have heared the camera is supposed to have improved autofocus and low light performance so that might be your best bet.

The AX700 is an updated version of the AX100 with new sensor and better autofocus so will have the same auto features you are used to on the AX100. It also has log gammas to get HDR too. But is only UHD 25/30P so off my list. As I mentioned the Canon competitor would be the GX10 that has 50/60P UHD also 800% gamma for HDR. Lots of people look for the shallow depth of field film look that requires a lot of effort to get correct. I think your application like my theatre shoots is more interested in the opposite of most things being in sharp focus. A smaller sensor and stopped down iris is more appropriate to get most things in focus and is easier on the auto systems too especially focus if you are at a higher frame rate.

Adriano,

Caio. I took a look at some of your videos - very interesting. It would seem to me that you should get a camcorder not a camera that shoots video. I think something like the Canon XF400 or Panasonic HC-X1
would be best for you and the kind of shooting you do.

Off topic - Where in Italy are you from? One set of my grandparents are from Porto Ercole, the other from Milano. I am looking to travel to Brazil to work on a film about lost tribes in June 2018. I'd love to talk.
Please email me harry @ sunnyandmildmedia.com

Adriano,
Off topic - Where in Italy are you from? One set of my grandparents are from Porto Ercole, the other from Milano. I am looking to travel to Brazil to work on a film about lost tribes in June 2018. I'd love to talk.

I have just sent an email.

The AX700 is an updated version of the AX100 with new sensor and better autofocus so will have the same auto features you are used to on the AX100. It also has log gammas to get HDR too. But is only UHD 25/30P so off my list. As I mentioned the Canon competitor would be the GX10 that has 50/60P UHD also 800% gamma for HDR. Lots of people look for the shallow depth of field film look that requires a lot of effort to get correct. I think your application like my theatre shoots is more interested in the opposite of most things being in sharp focus. A smaller sensor and stopped down iris is more appropriate to get most things in focus and is easier on the auto systems too especially focus if you are at a higher frame rate.

Your suggestions are immensely appreciated. I will think about them or I will wait for better cameras in the new year. AX700 has many better options than AX100 but maybe the image quality was not improved in a conspicuous way.

If it helps there's a series of test videos on this YouTube channel comparing the Sony AX100, AX700 and Canon GX10:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB9aMfuzQkhKBzp9QP7_kvQ

Unless you can read Japanese it's difficult to know how the recordings were processed in post but with this one comparing the AX700 shot in SDR mode at 4K30p (100Mbps) and GX10 in Standard mode at 4K60p (150Mbps) it's reasonable to suppose that the AX700 4K30p footage was edited on a 2160/60p timeline, or exported as such:

https://youtu.be/H3mTo3aH1T4

I have watched that comparison video in 4K on a 4k pc screen and the sony deals better with highlights, is more detailed and had better stabilization, the differences are more subtle but if I had to choose between both camera I'd take the Sony over the Canon.

Based on the video I didn’t see anything that jumped out at me although youtube isn’t the best way to judge. Only thing I could see was the sony was cooler in midtones.

The GH5 should out perform the smaller Sony 1 inch-type sensor in low light. I have not put my GH5 and NX80 or Z150 side by side yet but from using them I fully expect the GH5's larger sensor and same pixel count to beat them. Remember, the GH5 uses Sony EXMOR technology with that Sony IMX272 MFT sensor.

Somebody up top said it best though, your scene lighting and presentation will have WAY more influence on your overall quality than your camera.

Based on the video I didn’t see anything that jumped out

I have watched this comparison video in 4K on a 43 inch 4K pc screen and eventhough you can see youtube added compression you can see that the sony performs better, I have added one 4K screengrab and just watch the lights on top that have the advertising printed on it, second framegrab is a part of an image blow up to see the difference in detail.
Sony probably has some incamera sharpening going on because it looks there are some extra pixelation artifacts visible round edges which the canon doesn't show so you might get equal or better results if you sharpen the canon in post but since we don't have access to the files straight from the card we"ll never know. One thing I do see clearly is that the sony "appears" to be more detailed.
Also the stabilization difference is best seen on a big screen, it is a subtle difference but it is better on the Sony.

The first image apparently didn't upload? Here it is again.

We unfortunately do not know how the autofocus systems were set up either so interesting test but not conclusive. Still if one needs 50/60P UHD there is only the one choice. The Canon looks a little over exposed in a lot of the shot. At the 800% gamma may need a little grading to look really good. I think there is also a test of the GH5 vs the XF400 of a train too. GH5 clearly sharper but again were they in autofocus and at what settings as both have a lot of controls for auto focus.

I can see the sharpness difference in the close up. In the second capture the gx blows out the signs more but as the video progresses this goes away. This has more to do with auto exposure. You want to give the edge to Sony that’s fine but nothing you’d be able to spot without a side by side.

I looked up the pricing I was shocked how expensive the GX10 is for a consumer camcorder with that quality of video.

Yes you are paying for 50/60P UHD and the extra processing that takes with cooling etc not needed for HD or UHD30P.

In the video you can also see that the GX10 has a wider field of view too. We have no idea what the auto focus was set for on either camera as they both have many options and that goes for the exposure settings too. I do not think either are point and shoot cameras so need to be set up properly to get the best out of either of them. Putting them side by side in auto is a nice test but far from a useful comparison as to capabilities.

The GX10 may be expensive but the only one that does 50/60P UHD at anywhere near the price. A GH5 with lens will be more expensive. A better camera for sure but also has it difficulties with auto focus etc !!!

Out of curiosity I need to ask some questions:
1) If I had to buy the new Sony a7RIII and if I don't make interviews, iis it sufficient that mic to record the daily life sound?
2) If I need a mic and a light on the camera, what should I do? Do I have to add a bracket on it?
It would be a big inconvenience.

That isn’t a camera you would want. The best way to answer all your questions is go out and rent or borrow any dslr or mirrorless for a week. If you still like filming with one then come back and talk.

If you've got that kind of budget (not accounting for lenses), 4K/50p is a must, and you don't need log gamma profiles for stylized/filmic grading (you didn't mention it as a priority, so I'm assuming not) I'd seriously look at the Canon GX10, as Ron has been intimating. Not much out there in terms of raw video samples available for download (for the GX10 or AX700) but most big camera stores are happy to let you record your own if you bring an SD card. Probably the best way to reach a conclusion as to which has the better quality for your needs. Personally I think the videos on your YouTube channel look great.

As for audio. I don't know how the built-in mic on the GX10 compares with the AX100/700. If it's anything like the Canon HF-G40 (which I suspect it is) it will certainly be better than any dslr/mirrorless but yes, for decent quality audio (befitting your video) you will really need to consider an external mic. For recording 'daily life sounds' you couldn't go wrong with a Rode Stereo Videomic Pro (with the Rycote lyre suspension). On the GX10 you'd have the option of mounting on the forward positioned cold shoe or the rear positioned mini-advanced hot shoe using an adapter. On the AX100/700, you only have the one multi-interface shoe and always need an adapter for third-party accessories.

To manage an external mic and on-camera video light, yes you would really need to add a bracket of sorts, whatever camera you choose. For mounting an LED panel and RSVMP on my HF-G30 I use a (Rycote) shoe extension bar attached transversely to the cold shoe mount. For hand-held shooting, it's just manageable for short periods. The GX10 is a bit larger and heavier than the HF-G30/40 though. Upgrading to the XF-400/405 would give you that detachable handle, professional audio inputs and one cold shoe, but sacrifice the mini advanced hot shoe.

Anyhow, just my opinion, if I were in your shoes.

How have you been managing audio and on-board lighting (as needed) on the AX100 until now ?

P.S. Perusing the user manual I'm surprised to see that Canon omitted Highlight Priority mode on the GX10. I wonder why ? When I checked out the HF-G40 last year I wasn't that enamored with the Wide DR 'look' - too much noise in the shadows and softening of fine detail for my taste - maybe it's improved on the GX10 but it's hard to tell from that YouTube video. Highlight Priority mode though looked like it could be very useful in high contrast situations. No Cinema (gamma) Mode either, but they added a Monochrome 'look'. So, not much latitude there for stylized grading, but for documentary work and travelogues, do you really need that ?

Sorry to digress from the original thread topic.

Ron gave me very good suggestions. I searched info about Canon GX10 and I noticed it is a good camera. It has many better options than my Sony AX100, but its image quality is not better than AX100. I read that someone bought it and regretted the poor quality of the GX10. For that reason I'm considering the Sony a7RIII . But I am still not convinced in the purchase it because it is not easy to use it. But I NEED A BETTER IMAGE QUALITY THAN AX100. I have also considered much more expensive, bigger and heavy cameras but I'm thinking they aren't the right cameras for me because I will travel alone and I need light cameras. It is hard for my to test GX10 in some stores for now.
At this point I will stay at the window waiting for a better videocamera.

Sony AX 100 has a good mic. I don't have to add any external mic. to record 'daily life sounds'. I am satisfied with it. With that mic. I have only one problem: sometime the wind that disturbs the sound.