BlueBomberTurbo

With DXO, it's really not much of an issue. What I am seeing, if all things are 100% equal in this comparison, is extra green shadow noise. Can easily be cured with a 1 second EXIF edit, but still annoying (A9 had some, too).

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.

Shooting internally or externally? S-Log3 is too much for the internal codec to handle. Comes out fine on higher quality external recorders. S-Log2 is also fine internally.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off. There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited: NX500 over 5DS and NX1: I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department. I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1. By how much, I don't know. But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200. DXO One: Its Super RAW literally is super. It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise. The difference is dramatic. While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability. This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size. D3X over D5: The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III. Even crop sensors beat it. The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far. The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW. Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation. D600 over 1DX II and P40+: It's true. The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up. the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors. High ISO is also neck and neck. Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old. Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin. By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO. D3s and D700: I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point. It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best. The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own. Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f. All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings. If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO. My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810. #IQsnob. For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount. How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise. So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software. Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice. And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered. Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective. Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

If it's only 20MP, how would it get 6K? Especially with a 4:3 sensor. The A6300 crops from 3:2 to 16:9 to get 6K from its 24MP sensor as it is...

Just ran the test clip through 5DtoRGB using 601 (709 has no change) : Nice highlight recovery. :)

Here's a good comparison of the old and new: http://www.jonathangazeley.com/2011/05/lens-test-canon-ef-vs-fd-50mm-f1-8/

Yup, prime, though I hear the AF speed is a bit slow compared to other native GH2 lenses. I'd say get that over the kit lens either way because of the significant difference in aperture. The kit lens is really only good in daylight unless you don't mind noise. Then just pick up a manual prime in a different focal length + adapter, and you have a good starter kit.

If it has an aperture ring next to the mount, yes.

Yup, I've got one of those for my Nikon G (electronic aperture) lenses and it works just fine. Just be aware that if you're also using lenses with electronically actuated apertures, the adjustment ring on that adapter is very coarse, with a very short adjustment range (still goes from min to max aperture). It's pretty much impossible to get any type of repeatable precision when setting the aperture. If you're just adjusting aperture based on the appearance of the light and/or bokeh in the scene, that adapter is fine. But if you need to know the precise aperture setting being used, and/or be able to return to it later, you'll need an expensive adapter with a fine adjustment. One of the biggest reasons to get fully manual primes.

Canon and Nikon are pretty similar, though Nikons tend to be a bit sharper more often than not, especially when you get to the higher end primes that are also more contrasty and colorful. There are adapters for each specific brand/lens mount. Even the cheap ones work (around $25), though may need a bit of tightening (slip a knife in the prongs of the mount). If you look hard enough, you can probably get an old F/1.8-2.8 prime between 28-55mm without issues for as low as $50, though they usually hover around $100. Go wider/longer/faster and the price starts to go up. The biggest limitation when using primes on a GH2 is when it comes to wide angles. You'll usually find down to 28mm cheaply enough, but things start to get more expensive past that. Primes tend to bottom out at 20mm, too, which is about a 40mm equivalent on the GH2. Not very wide. I have a Nikon-mount Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 so I can go wider than that (about 22-32, wide enough), though it's above your suggested budget at $650 (and needs a slightly more expensive adapter because no aperture ring). Sigma makes a cheaper, slower, wide angle lens that can work, too. A bonus to these is that under good lighting, you can use ETC mode's additional 2.6x crop for a normal field of view. Like having two lenses in one! :)

Few questions first: 1. What are you shooting? Do you need wide, normal, and/or telelphoto to tell your story? Will it be in daylight or at night/indoors? 2. What's your lens budget? Are cheap primes OK with you (requiring switching out depending on the situation), or do you need an all in one solution (or however close you can get)? 3. Do you need autofocus? Do you have a monitor with focus peaking, or do you need the camera to be able to lock onto the subject? I actually just picked up the 14-42 kit lens, and it's not bad at all. I primarily use Nikon 2.8 zooms, a few primes, and one big Canon ENG zoom (all with adapters), and really the worst part of the kit lens is its lack of constant aperture. The AF comes in handy, making it quick to get accurate focus instead of relying on my monitor with focus peaking. The lens is very small and light, making the setup featherweight and easy to deal with compared to a standard DSLR (used to shoot with a D7000). Not 100% sure about FCP X, but I have heard of people having issues with using the MTS files on a Mac. Pick up 5DtoRGB and convert to ProRes and you should be fine. It also significantly improves the quality on the chroma side of things, smoothing out the otherwise chunky color that 4:2:0 encodes.

If it's too close, that's a good thing, since you can just unscrew it a bit from the adapter.  You can either drill holes in the adapter to line up with the holes in the lens, then use screws to keep everything in place, or just epoxy them together.  If the lens is too far, you'll need to machine either the adapter or the lens to get more depth.  That could be pricey, and still may not work.