aldolega

AF- Nikon's DSLR's won't cut it. Mirrorless will be closer but still not as good as a true camcorder. I doubt they'd handle such fast-moving subjects well enough for you. Canon's Dual-Pixel AF is the most serviceable large-sensor AF, but that wouldn't work with your Nikkors obviously. Zooming- not really realistic. It's very difficult to get a smooth, not-jerky zoom by hand on a stills lens, and few stills lenses are parfocal (focus point doesn't change wity focal length), so your subject would drift out of focus as you zoom. You would want a powered/servo zoom. Sony makes a couple for their E-mount (28-135 f4 and 18-200 f3.5-?). You can finagle old B4 broadcast lenses onto m4/3 with an adapter and a battery to power the zoom motor. Optical quality isn't stellar unless you drop new-car money on a newer HD lens. IS- usually works well enough at shortish focal lengths (wide through portrait). For tele length, depends. I have a buddy who can hand-hold his 7D/70-200 f4 IS and get very smooth shots with no other rigging. When I try that it looks like an earthquake, so I stay on sticks or at least a monopod at tele lengths.

​Moire and rolling shutter wouldn't be affected by a higher bitrate. You'd have the same stripey jello, just with fewer compression artifacts.

Panasonic FZ1000 or LX100.

I would go for a Tokina 11-16 and the two native zooms (16-50 f2-2.8 and 50-150 f2.8). I don't think Tokina makes anything in NX mount (yet, hopefully), so I would do a Nikon-mount version, as there are plenty of adapters that will give you manual aperture control.

Sounds like you need to go for the Sony f4 zooms. For run & gun with a full-frame cam, I doubt you would ever want shallower than f4 anyways. Unfortunately selling the Canon stuff won't cover buying the Sony's. Your 17-50 is an APS-C lens, so assuming you want the ability to shoot your wide to normal FOV's on full frame, you would need to replace it anyways.

Does this happen on Windows? Hasn't OSX/Quicktime had gamma clipping problems like this for years?

If you need a budget option, the Carryspeed loupes are a decent imitation of the LCDVF.

Getting the Speedbooster is well worth the premium over the normal adapter. Faster and wider!

The 5D2RGB guy should jump on the opportunity to offer a good transcoding app for the NX1. If some people are paying $40 for Wondershare to do a decent job, I bet a lot more would pay the same for something that (I assume) would do an excellent job.

LX100? 4K, small, good stabilization.

Don't forget to consider the usefulness of 4K for getting multiple crops/framings out of one camera (assuming you're finishing in 1080p). This can be useful for interviews. I would also consider avoiding moire very important. In my (admittedly limited) experience shooting interviews, inevitably at least one of the subjects is always wearing the Super Moire Special print from Bob's Big House of Dancing Shimmery Shirts Warehouse. Aggravating!

The holes for mounting rails or a QR plate are way off-center, but other than that it seems decent.

Projectors already show each frame of a 24p film two or three times, so that wouldn't be any different.

GH4 has more (deeper) DOF for the same subject composition because you have to either: - Be further away from the subject to get the framing (longer focal distance/closer to infinity = deeper DOF) or -Use a wider/shorter lens, to maintain the same subject framing at the same distance. Wider lenses have a deeper DOF.

I'm also curious about rolling shutter and DR, and any problems with the >30p modes.

Lens sharpness is different than electronic processing sharpness- which is what the GH's have always gone overboard with at default settings. They also do additional processing when you use native (electronic) m4/3 lenses, to correct each lenses' shortcomings (edge softness, CA, etc). Just turn the sharpness setting down and use your NLE to sharpen to taste, and/or use non-native (not Panny or Olympus) lenses.

If you are starting from scratch, yes, absolutely. The ~$1300 difference between a GH4 and a used GH2 will go a long, long ways towards all the peripherals you need to shoot effectively.... tripod, lenses, cards, audio gear, bag/case, lighting, etc. This gear will make a much larger difference in your end product than the GH4 over the GH2.

Modern compression doesn't scale that linearly though. One quarter of a (properly implemented) 100mb/s 4k shot is going to look better than a full 25mb/s 1080p shot, all else being equal.

For pretty much anything not involving fast motion, it's really quite silly to compare the GH4's 200mb/s mode to its 100mb/s modes, or the GH3's 50mb/s modes: those are IPB, and the 200mb/s is All-I. IPB is vastly more efficient with its bandwidth, so long as you don't have fast, continuous motion over most of the frame. Compare the GH4's to the GH3's or 5DIII's All-I modes, and there won't be nearly as much complaining.

h.265 is great, but in terms of editing, we're right back to where we were in 2009 or so- affordable or near-affordable computers don't have enough power to decode it smoothly in real-time, so we're stuck transcoding to an un- or less-compressed format. In a year or two or three the software and hardware will catch up and we'll be where we've been for a couple years with h.264 (native editing, smooth playback).

I never had a GH3 so I can't speak directly from experience, but I would expect the GH4's 60p to be a bit better (higher bitrate, All-I option, slightly better sensor), but not massively so. The HFR stuff above 60p is indeed a bit lower quality than normal 60p, a little less detailed... but I think it would be perfectly fine for shooting people/close-ups.

Just because the Shogun can record it doesn't mean the camera outputs it.

Flange distance is exactly the same as EF. The reason Canon EF-S's won't fit is that most of them have a protruding lip on the back of the lens that would hit the SpeedBooster's optics (or the mirror on a full frame camera). I do remember seeing an article somewhere online though, about shaving the lip off to clear a 5D's mirror. Perhaps this could be done to clear the Speedbooster optics? The 17-55 f2.8 is the only EF-S lens I can think of that'd be worth this kind of effort. There's also the question of whether the electronic protocol is different for EF-S.

A lot of those users are probably spam bots and the like. I feel like anyone dedicated enough to slog through pages of forum posts to read up on a topic probably has no problem posting.

+1 Would like to see this added.