Emanuel

The color science of these guys coupled to their solid bit rate and truly golden acquisition have no parallel wherever we're looking for at similar range (I even intimidate myself to write price range... WTH it's 700 bucks!)

...
Jump to minute 9:23 and you'll see another much acute comparison... Don't forget to take a look on minute 11:12 as well ; )
Well, sharpness is far to be a standard :-)

@TheRenaissanceMan I found that comparison test pretty interesting. Didn't you? I also found the tester has arrived to the same opinion your comments point out and I share. Reason why I pushed the 'like' button over your posts and posted that.
@jonpais When I was @ law school before to conclude my learning there, I had dreams, you know? I thought filmmaking was much easier to match my own expectations. Then, I went to film school where I could have the experience of 4-years full training on post-production and directing departments. I also realized at that time the post graduate studies in the field of production could lead to better waters for the kind of work I would like to experiment and became a producer. You can find the links in my signature shot with many different cameras. In one or another I had some influence on the camera decision front, as well, some other gear connected with. Without mention some creative choices to make, non-technology-related. On a few others, none of my business for that specific project. 
On the leftover, I don't find a forum like this one may call the best location for that. I am not a reviewer nor tester in any way other than non-scientific tests I perform when other ones have much more work to show. So, I'd rather post the best I can find to illustrate my own finds. As a still photographer I also much appreciate to shoot, oh well, frankly on that one, follows the same rule in the last paragraph, at least in part. I always praise my work as very personal. There's place for everything in life and life out there  : ) The right location.  

@TheRenaissanceMan I found that comparison test pretty interesting. Didn't you? I also found the tester has arrived to the same opinion your comments point out and I share. Reason why I pushed the 'like' button over your posts and posted that.
@jonpais When I was @ law school before to conclude my learning there, I had dreams, you know? I thought filmmaking was much easier to match my own expectations. Then, I went to film school where I could have the experience of 4-years full training on post-production and directing departments. I also realized at that time the post graduate studies in the field of production could lead to better waters for the kind of work I would like to experiment and became a producer. You can find the links in my signature shot with many different cameras. In one or another I had some influence on the camera decision front, as well, some other gear connected with. Without mention some creative choices to make, non-technology-related. On a few others, none of my business for that specific project. 
On the leftover, I don't find a forum like this one may call the best location for that. I am not a reviewer nor tester in any way other than non-scientific tests I perform when other ones have much more work to show. So, I'd rather post the best I can find to illustrate my own finds. As a still photographer I also much appreciate to shoot, oh well, frankly on that one, follows the same rule in the last paragraph, at least in part. I always praise my work as very personal. There's place for everything in life and life out there  : ) The right location.  

The color science of these guys coupled to their solid bit rate and truly golden acquisition have no parallel wherever we're looking for at similar range (I even intimidate myself to write price range... WTH it's 700 bucks!)

Looks like the Micro is already going down in price on the second hand market. I got one for under $700. This is my first test, also my first time shooting Raw. Love this little camera. My Micro and Pocket should compliment each other well.

In my opinion with cameras that have baked-in sharpening & contrast, the sharpest, cleanest, most flare-resistant lenses, usually give the worst results.  

I know you didn't say it flat out, but there's often an attitude floating around that the technically sharpest, cleanest, most flare-resistant lenses are the ones you NEED to go for, and that any other choice is based on fanciful ideas or ignorance. Some DPs DO find Master Primes too flat and perfect. Some love their strong, consistent performance. Maybe we could improve the discourse of the forum by trying to recognize more often that there are many effective methods, and they should all be analyzed and appreciated for their unique merits.
Mercer, the advantage of knowing a little about the higher end optics is that they have distinct characteristics they're known for, and therefore work as good references against which to compare the lower-end stuff we have a better chance of owning/renting for our personal projects. For example: my Leicas were made in the same company at the same time by the same designers as the Panavision lenses of that era--the C series--and share some similar design goals/aesthetics, though obviously made to meet completely different price points. Contax Zeiss, on the other hand, were made alongside their Super and Standard Speed cinema glass, and have characteristics that hover somewhere between the two, depending which specific lens you're looking at.
RedUser is a great place to hear about the higher end stuff, as are articles by people like Art Adams. Shane Hurlbut's tests are useful, but his commentary often isn't imo. John Brawley I find has great insight on optics too; his tests on the SLR Magic APO primes really won me over. 
Ultimately, our tools are a personal choice that help us define ourselves as artists. All I'm asking is that we keep that in mind, alongside the more vigorous "better or worse" quality debates that regularly dominate the site.

Sure, but Deakins' aesthetic is generally hyper-clean and polished. He's one of the greats, but his way is not the only way. Robert Richardson specifically chose softer lenses for Hateful Eight because he hated how exacting the more modern lenses "draw." Neither is inherently a better or more valuable approach, but rather a very personal choice rooted in the aesthetic tastes if the DP/director and the needs of each specific project.
Personally, I'm big on the smooth-yet-detailed look of Cooke and older Panavision, which is why I went for 70's (Mandler era) Leica glass. But even that isn't right for every project; I will often rent or borrow Zeiss Milvus or Contax if I'm looking for something a little harder, slicker, less "emotional," etc.
Even then, Mercer is right in that the camera is yet another variable in this whole equation. Some are pickier than others about the glass you use (NX1, anyone?), whereas some work great with everything. Some render crisper, some more forgiving. Your lighting style affects these choices, too. Need to have bright spots roaming around the set and potentially flashing the lens without blinding the camera? Sure, I'll go Master Primes. Trying to do an epic establishing pan shot of a sunlit location, complete with dramatic flare? Not so much with the Master Primes. Got aging talent that needs to look glamorous? Run from Master Primes as fast as your legs will carry you.
It is NEVER a hard and fast rule. It ALWAYS depends. Seeing the utility of each available paintbrush is a critical part of advancing in your craft. There is no "correct" way.
 
(Sorry...veered us even further off topic here. Happy to discuss lens aesthetics and other non-camera comparison subjects via private message or in the Lenses topic.)

Although the foggy haze definitely helped him with that video, so did that Fujian lens and this is one of my favorite GH5 videos... so... thanks for finding it!!!
I love crappy lenses. Be it cheap new lenses, or cheap vintage lenses. One of my most watched lens tests, on Vimeo, was from a Sony 3n and one of those aps-c c-mount 25mm lenses.
Everybody has different needs and opinions. Some people want the cleanest, and sharpest image. For me, I just want something interesting... sometimes you can get there faster with a clean, sterile image, other times a funky lens will do the job. Hell, sometimes an iPhone and a Moondog Anamorphic may do the trick.
Traditionally, I have chosen lenses based on practical reasons... money. And honestly that’s as good a reason as any. Recently, I have found myself in a rough financial patch, so I am revisiting a lot of my old lenses and man there are some unknown gems that cost next to nothing.
Will they give you a perfectly sharp image across the frame, no... but they will lend a little character that these modern sensors sometimes need to quell the inherent sterility of 4K sensors.
In some ways the P2 is too good, I really hope the final version has some of the funk and edge of the original Pocket and BMCC.
If it is too good, maybe it will be popular enough for me to snag a cheap GH5 on the used market. I already own a camera that shoots Raw, so if I’m going to buy a second camera... something with IBIS, or one of the dozens of other things the GH5 does well, could be equally as appealing as a P2.

I must confess I'd rather take the smoothness balance without losing the sharp outcome for any one of the 14-42mm versions than the sharpness from the 12-35mm constant f/2.8 glass... Unpredictable stuff from tempered forks over knives (interesting doc title BTW) to gently handle can always end juicy to our side as we wish and our craft takes there. Cinematic milestone is anything but never utmost real details from the subject to shoot.
Thanks to Chris for taking the discussion on the table : ) More love for crappy lenses! LOL : ))
Here we go -- no reason to be picky with low light shortcoming this time... no excuses hehe
Sorry to go deeper (you Glenn @mercer already know it) BTW it even has Fuji in the name all included! LMAO (E :-)

Regarding this post... maybe it is worth noting that lens used with GH5 was Zeiss-Contax zoom. Somewhere in other thread I wrote that from my experience (and taste), two zooms significantly stand out between all other - Zeiss-Contax T 28-85 and Leica R 28-70... Actually, for some reason that one Zeiss makes incredible, I think unsurpassed match with Panasonic (often better than its prime counterparts) - providing at the same time fascinating resolution, details and smooth gradient, after very sudden out-of-focus-drops behind focused subject... But it is not so "silky" smooth in operation as Leica R 28-70.

I wasn't a fan of the 12-35 either on the GH4. Though I better not call it crappy or Emanuel will have a stroke. 

The lumix 14-42mm mark II was my first lens with the BMPCC, which I used briefly before switching to a speedbooster. The stabilisation worked fine for me too, though there was no way of turning it off as there was no OIS switch on the lens itself. When panning the motion could get a bit jerky, depending on the way you panned.
Here's a video I made with it (also using an Olympus 9mm f8 toy lens for wide shots), prores, with some post stabilisation:
And this one exclusively with the 14-42mm:
 

The Panny 14-42mm...?! WTH How dare you...?! What a crappy lens!! LOL : ) Sorry, couldn't resist... :-)
 

No worries, mate : ) LOL I love to play with the concept... there are fanboys and fayboys hehe Thanks anyway to rule me out of there : )) Nice from you, buddy :-)
We can't love cameras anymore without label them as our mistresses, isn't it? ;-)

Here is a post on DVXUSER that shows the GH5S beating the C500 in highlight roll-off. Very interesting!
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?359026-GH5s-dynamic-range-tests/page3

There is a nine page thread on BMCUser about firmware requests that people want.
Nine pages.
Six months before its even come out.
We're positively like a Zen Buddhist commune in here by comparison

No Chris, not my craft. I am not upset as I could tell you answering your friendly PM. As written, no worries. I also think I can disclose a bit the content of your message which clearly hints you've actually recommended that same lens, so not exactly a divergence unites us on that one : ) My point is to clear up the topic, no other : ) I am usually one of the jokers over here so why shouldn't I be second your mood there, isn't it? : D We come to these boards for making friends among the members not to fight on topics, no matter we may diverge or not (E :-)

So two ergonomic complaints, a complaint about the buffer and a complaint about low light performance.
Yes, the dedicated ISO button is on the far left shoulder of the camera. But as he points out himself in the video, you can change ISO directly with the jog dial on the right - easy as pie. Or you can press Fn and use the thumb dials, if you're scared of accidentally moving the jog dial at some point. So the whole criticism is moot and he makes it moot himself. It's more of a handling tip than a complaint, then? But in the clickbait headline it's a PROBLEM.
The other complaint is that the screen flips out, rather than be fully articulated like on the GH5. But the Sony screens do that as well, don't they, and he raves about them.
The buffer section of the video I skipped... Can't comment. Not related to video whatsoever.
The 4K video performance in low light... Well, this was before the high bitrate hack and NX-L adapter So I'll give him that. No, it isn't an A7S and never will be, but ISO 800 is cleaner than the GH4... Virtually noiseless... And that, at F1.0 on the NX-L, is not what I call "bad low light performance"

No Chris, not my craft. I am not upset as I could tell you answering your friendly PM. As written, no worries. I also think I can disclose a bit the content of your message which clearly hints you've actually recommended that same lens, so not exactly a divergence unites us on that one : ) My point is to clear up the topic, no other : ) I am usually one of the jokers over here so why shouldn't I be second your mood there, isn't it? : D We come to these boards for making friends among the members not to fight on topics, no matter we may diverge or not (E :-)

So just because the sensor is capable of Dual ISO, if they don’t implement a circuit, there would be no trace of it embedded in the hardware of the sensor?
Which leads me to ask... is the implementation of Dual ISO hardware or software related?

But it's a strange situation. It's almost like having 13 or 12.75 Stops at ISO 400 and ISO 3200, or, 13.5 Stops at ISO 100. The low light would be hit big time. I won't be surprised if it may then be unusable at ISO 1600. 

AF can cause many spoiled gimbal shots, even canon DPAF can mess up your shot at just the crucial moment.
You can pre focus and maintain subject distance and get great shots, even with shallow DOF. 
If you need more leeway, stop down a bit.