noone

DXO has their explanations.
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Overall-Score
 
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
Low light score in particular is an actual ISO and I think the easiest to explain.
"Sports & action photography: Low-Light ISO
Unlike the two previous scenarios in which light is either generous (studio) or stability is assured (landscape), photojournalists and action photographers often struggle with low available light and high motion. Achieving usable image quality is often difficult when pushing ISO.
When shooting a moving scene such as a sports event, action photographers’ primary objective is to freeze the motion, giving priority to short exposure time. To compensate for the lack of exposure, they have to increase the ISO setting, which means the SNR will decrease. How far can they go while keeping decent quality? Our low-light ISO metric will tell them.
The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image looks, because details aren't drowned by noise. SNR strength is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which equates to half the noise for the same signal.
An SNR value of 30dB means excellent image quality. Thus low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits.
A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable.
As cameras improve, low-light ISO will continuously increase, making this scale open."
 
It has nothing to do with AF etc so I think the sports scores are pretty reasonable maybe more so if you just consider them as low light rather than sports and remember it is based on their criteria.       I am fine with using an A7s for night time sports.      I use an old manual focus 300 2.8 anyway so it just means I can use a higher shutter speed.     None of the shots would be printed huge so 12mp is fine.
A modern FF DSLR would be a better sports CAMERA most of the time but does it have a better sports SENSOR (given DXOmarks criteria)?
The overall scores are a bit based on voodoo as the bits that go into that are subjective without full explanation as to weighting.
I think some of the anomalies might be because of a low number of samples tested given many cameras get slightly different scores with the same sensors.      A slight difference might be just enough to take a camera a bit over or a bit under their marks.     I don't think the A7s is any noisier than the A7sii and It seems the colour depth might be why the A7sii gets a lower score for low light (the point they cross 18 bits for colour sensitivity).
For video it is all a bit silly though as they are only testing RAW stills and most video is Jpeg.
I would love to see a site test sensors for video.    RAW and otherwise.
 

Fuji something recent and not entry level?       That is just a guess from your profile (a stills camera).    It seems to have some shallow depth at times so it does seem like APSC too.
With at least in part a 23 1.4? (many Fuji lenses have 9 blades and some have 7 and this had 7 at least part of the time).
Just guessing.      Could be a phone to for all I know but it seems ok and put together well..

It should if it is a Canon mount lens and you use either a Metabones smart adapter (focal reducer or non focal reducer) or Kipon (non focal reducer only).
That is it should at least work for AF for stills.     Video will need someone to try the lens with the various adapters.

I'm pretty sure you just described Trump.  ( more of a celebrity than a politician, he's smug, etc etc. ) hahahahaha

Base ISO is important for me. I won't do night shooting or very little because the camps wont be in the good spots, and because weather is so shitty that it often can rain in night even if forecast say otherwise (so can't let camera outside the tent).
Also to make dynamic timelapses I need to zoom in the image a lot so no A7SII for timelapse. 
I had a 5D3 for a year which I hated. Couple images in my gallery (see first post) with it. DR was so horrible that it was always a pain to edit dramatic landscapes. D5200 400$ camera has been a relief vs 5D3.  Understand that I don't care much of DR for the timelapse itself. A 6D is fine for a timelapse. I care of DR for the single RAW that I will extract from it, work 2 hours on photoshop to get a nice image and then sell. 
for weight :
d810 is 880g, d7200 is 680g and d5500 is 450g. But with d810 you have a 1000g lens (14-24). An APSC tokina 11-20mm 2.8 is 550g. Overall 700g gain with D7200 and almost a kilo with D5500. When I know I spend 200$ more in each hiking piece of gear to win 100g over other gear...
Worst than this the gimbal is 1kg. But I don't see myself without a gimbal anymore it gives so nice dynamic footages. Since I won't have many subjects except my buddy running in the rocks, having the gimbal allows for more dramatic shots. Statics shots in mountain are boring. 
The best weight package overall would be :
D5500 for timelapses on my carbon tripod
RX100v on gimbal for all videos with 80% 120p and 20% 4K 
Other option is A6500 instead of RX100 and or D810 instead of D5500. 
Main advantage of A6500 would be Deepth of field shots vs the RX100. But then I would need a special lens like a 35mm 1.8. But then why not use the Nikon body for that.. So I can let's say bring a 35mm 1.8 for the Nikon and shoot nice 1080p60p with it on the Nikon for potential DoF shots. 
 

Seems a bit, well, noisy even at base.    Or is that bass?

Mine arrived yesterday, body only, so any lens advice would be more than welcomed.... I know, Iknow, I should have asked more questions.

If you just want to use your Canon lenses, there is also a Kipon adapter that is not a focal reducer/speedbooster and it is  bit cheaper.    
I don't know how well it would work with your camera but it is fine with my GX7 and all my Canon lenses except an ancient film era EF 28-90.      Doesn't work for AFC with my camera but AFS is pretty quick and fairly accurate (and including my EF-S 18-55 IS ii kit lens).       It doesn't allow IBIS with my GX7 and Canon lenses for some reason but IBIS is fairly limited anyway with the GX7.    IS works well when that is in the lens.
IF AF in video or AFC is required, native is still better (except for the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 at least).
If you can afford it, I would recommend at least trying a AF adapter/speedbooster to use your lenses especially if keeping dual systems.

Just under 13 stops at ISO 100 for print, just over 12 for screen but we often forget that is applying to the sensor and for stills in RAW only.
I would think that video (unless RAW) is mostly going to be less.       GH4 DR drops away fairly steeply as you go up the ISO range (as is the case with most cameras but especially smaller sensor cameras).
The Canon 5Diii that has been mentioned a bit in this thread has about a stop less DR at ISO 100 but has caught up by ISO 400 and is a stop ahead by ISO 3200 (against the GH4).
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___943_795
The latest Canons seem to have been raised their DR at base to the levels of other APSC and FF cameras.
Many cameras don't have the same range of ISOs for video that they do for stills.     My A7s can not go under ISO 100 for video and my GX7 can not go over ISO 3200 for video.
I cant help but thinking the GH5 , for video might look better than its DXO scores would indicate.       GH5 maybe will have a bit better DR and a bit less noise than the GH4 and should be not much different for stills but video, maybe some of its tech will make it better (against others).      
I still think it wont match fairly recent APSC or FF cameras in low light but up to ISO 3200 (maybe 6400) many will prefer it (video anyway) maybe??
 
 
 

Hi all, I shot this in Jordan a month or so ago with a Sony A7sii and a Zhiyun crane. I used two lenses, the Sony 28mm f2 and the Canon Fd 50mm f1.4. We also had permission from the Jordanian gov to use a Phantom 4 while we were there. Would love to answer any questions and if you would like to follow along on Fb and on youtube that would be great, thanks!
youtube.com/channel/UCw0J_iNkme1qf2Q1nucVxJA
facebook.com/joshuamorinfilm
Edit: it's showing up a bit weird. Here is the link: https://www.facebook.com/matadornetwork/videos/10154847045404394/
 

I think she looks better without make up.

A7S + Shogun 4K + Leitz Elmaron 150/2.8 70's Projection lens.
https://vimeo.com/197502073

Well what ever happens, Happy New Year! May we all get a faster computer.

Charlie said: not fast moving subject...
 
Even my a7s with metabones and canon 16-35mm f4 IS was fine in AF with the center point for those subjects. 
otherwise, nikon have great option also 
F-mount is quite adaptable too... just focusing backward, mehhh whatever. 

Well the OP has the same problem all us "Poor People" have. Well I guess even rich people have the same problem. No one camera does it all. I am now in the same boat. Sold a few cameras I had. Down to pretty much my G7 to scounge up money.
Thinking hard on a C100. And yes the Photos suck on it. 8mp. Yes no 4k, but I really don't need that, have a Panny G7 that does that. Crazy to sell it for what you can get for one. Every ones here has great ideas. Just not the perfect idea, and sad to say there isn't one. Best advice I can add. 
And it takes damn good stills, really good ones.

I have been using my A7s as a STILLS camera for two years now in all lighting conditions.        There has never been a situation where I wanted a different camera.       I don't consider ISO 6400 to be "low light" anymore.
The A7s is not a camera for shooting sports with machine gun AF  though I have used it for sports from time to time and especially for night time sports found it to be quite good (my longest decent lens is an old manual focus 300 2.8 that I have used across systems), I have had plenty of photos published in newspapers (including sports) using it over the years and would happily submit photos from the A7s using it.      Sure, I would get MORE shots using a D750 and the latest greatest AF 300 2.8 but I can not afford that and from my experience, in plenty of situations, I would be using a higher shutter speed with my MF lens and A7s than someone with the Nikon combination would.    
I would happily do a "shootout" but it would NOT just be for one thing where the A7s is not good, but would be just about anything.      I actually PREFER the AF of my A7s over the Canon 7D I used to have.      The Canon was a bit faster to focus and could focus on much faster moving things but was less accurate, much more limited in focus areas and gave up earlier.      
My AF needs are pretty similar to the OPs from the original post (maybe I use AF a bit more even for stills and video but not to the OP's level for video), partly why I suggest they at least TRY an A7s if possible.
Look, the D750 is a nice camera and for many it would be the choice of the two.     It is not for me as,
A) No EVF (I much prefer an EVF these days).
B) Larger than I would like
C) ISO limited (I often use ISOs - with and without auto focus) at ISOs higher than the D750 can go, that is not to say it is still a good camera at high ISOs but for my needs, the A7s is better).
D) In good light, with my fast lenses, I often need 1/8000, the D750 is limited to 1/4000.
E) I like using focus peaking with AF with my two native AF lenses.
F) I like using Canon lenses as I can use them (with AF and full electronic control) on both my A7s and GX7), couldn't do that with a D750.   
G)  My favourite lens is a manual focus wide angle tilt shift lens that I use for lots of things but including walk around at night and for live band stills and video.      Couldn't do that with Nikon anything currently (though the new 19mm PC lens looks promising, they just need a FF Nikon mirrorless now).
 
There are other reasons
Anyway, while the D750 is a great camera, I will stick to my A7s for stills and video, again in all lighting ("lousy" AF and all!).        It is very early now so I am going for a morning walk with just my A7s and 28-70 FE kit lens.       AF will be just fine with auto ISO set to ISO 102400, then later tonight (New Years Eve), I will go shoot a band (or two) and including lots of people in pub lighting and using AF as well as MF and I bet it works just fine.

I have been using my A7s as a STILLS camera for two years now in all lighting conditions.        There has never been a situation where I wanted a different camera.       I don't consider ISO 6400 to be "low light" anymore.
The A7s is not a camera for shooting sports with machine gun AF  though I have used it for sports from time to time and especially for night time sports found it to be quite good (my longest decent lens is an old manual focus 300 2.8 that I have used across systems), I have had plenty of photos published in newspapers (including sports) using it over the years and would happily submit photos from the A7s using it.      Sure, I would get MORE shots using a D750 and the latest greatest AF 300 2.8 but I can not afford that and from my experience, in plenty of situations, I would be using a higher shutter speed with my MF lens and A7s than someone with the Nikon combination would.    
I would happily do a "shootout" but it would NOT just be for one thing where the A7s is not good, but would be just about anything.      I actually PREFER the AF of my A7s over the Canon 7D I used to have.      The Canon was a bit faster to focus and could focus on much faster moving things but was less accurate, much more limited in focus areas and gave up earlier.      
My AF needs are pretty similar to the OPs from the original post (maybe I use AF a bit more even for stills and video but not to the OP's level for video), partly why I suggest they at least TRY an A7s if possible.
Look, the D750 is a nice camera and for many it would be the choice of the two.     It is not for me as,
A) No EVF (I much prefer an EVF these days).
B) Larger than I would like
C) ISO limited (I often use ISOs - with and without auto focus) at ISOs higher than the D750 can go, that is not to say it is still a good camera at high ISOs but for my needs, the A7s is better).
D) In good light, with my fast lenses, I often need 1/8000, the D750 is limited to 1/4000.
E) I like using focus peaking with AF with my two native AF lenses.
F) I like using Canon lenses as I can use them (with AF and full electronic control) on both my A7s and GX7), couldn't do that with a D750.   
G)  My favourite lens is a manual focus wide angle tilt shift lens that I use for lots of things but including walk around at night and for live band stills and video.      Couldn't do that with Nikon anything currently (though the new 19mm PC lens looks promising, they just need a FF Nikon mirrorless now).
 
There are other reasons
Anyway, while the D750 is a great camera, I will stick to my A7s for stills and video, again in all lighting ("lousy" AF and all!).        It is very early now so I am going for a morning walk with just my A7s and 28-70 FE kit lens.       AF will be just fine with auto ISO set to ISO 102400, then later tonight (New Years Eve), I will go shoot a band (or two) and including lots of people in pub lighting and using AF as well as MF and I bet it works just fine.

Actually, the A7s (mine Is the first version) is very good for AF.      NOT AFC, but AFS is just fine and while it may well hunt in extremely low light, there is hardly any camera that will auto focus at the extremes the A7s can.        It is rated at EV -4 but is often stated as being more like EV -5.       My GX7 also has EV -4 AF but it can not keep up with the A7s given a similar lens.
Video AF somehow does work better for AFC than it does for stills (the FE kit lens works a treat for AF for something like a musician in a confined stage area as long as the movement isn't too rapid).      There would be better cameras for AF overall (and just about any for AFC is better) but the A7s is actually pretty good for single shot AF and in almost no light it can focus using the glow from an appliance LED.
Even using Canon lenses (which it is slow to AF with), it can AF in light lower than the same lens on just about all current Canons.
It has less DR at base ISO than any other FF Sony E mount but it is still more than all the Canons except the 1d x ii and the 5d iv (and is equal with the 80D).     It has more than a stop on the 80D by ISO 800, about a stop on the 1Dx ii and 5d iv by ISO 25600.
Again, the A7s is an excellent stills camera, (which is why I got it) but it is a better video camera than I need.       I love that it can record both XAVCs and 720p MP4 at the same time so when I shoot a song, I have a full size video to play with and a smaller copy I can email to the band (as long as it isn't too long a song.)
 

Of course, STILL a great PHOTO camera Kisaha

I could send plenty of landscape example shot over the last 2 years with it... but I don't feel the need to prove anything here, just saying... the PHOTO mode is awesome too (coming off a canon 7d, canon 6d, nikon d90, nikon d70s, fuji x-pro1 past user) 

You have no idea what you are talking about....?  



a7s is a great camera. Raw files are amazing, pretty much any lens will be sharp with it. DR is great overall at low iso (13 stop) and really good at high iso (10 stop / 6400iso). 12mp is more than enough for anything out there ...more than that you are a pixel peeper or cropping the shit out of your photos...!  Low light is out of this world. 1080p60 s35 is amazing, 4k output too. 
1.1x / 1.2x / 1.3x / 1.4x / 1.5x crop without significant loss of quality
Slog2 can be tricky but isn't that hard to master and PPoff with 16-235 re map work good for colors straight off the bat. 
You can adapt any kind of lens on it. 
Wifi is fine and great for remote shooting.  
E-shutter for timelapse - buffer is quick enough with a good card to shoot 1 fps continous for smooth sunset / sunrise 
Peaking/ zebra and all that fun stuff 
2.8k aps-c is upscale to 4k on the hdmi out too... 
No overheating or what so ever on long recording ... i've done often 4h-6h of prores combine with the atomos shogun 
 
Autofocus, I have not a single idea... i've never cared. 
 
Don't hesitate to buy it... highly recommended. A great tool overall 

I think it depends on what your needs are. I take everything from a writing standpoint and how I envision the project. If you're writing an action film, you may just need the 120fps.
I'm a cabinet maker by trade and like carpentry you need the right tool for the right job. A lot of people can make due with what they have, but the proper tool makes the job easier. This is why I have resigned myself to having 2 or 3 cheaper cameras with a couple lenses for each one... different tools for different jobs. But do I really need 2 or 3 cheaper cameras... of course not... it's just the projects I am planning require different features that not every camera in this price bracket has. So need and want is subjective.

Or get both! Aaaaaand we arrived at the opposite of the point of the thread

I used to love mount the Q onto my Canon 85 1.2, that camera was the most fun (though it is just a small sensor camera).      

The funny thing is... That video looks really good. I've always felt some of the small sensor point and shoots have some kind of unquantifiable soul to their IQ. For your first video, you should be proud of that. 
I had a Q7 for a little while last year. It was my first test of using D-mount and c-mount lenses in the digital world. Unfortunately, there are some issues with Pentax video, namely rolling shutter that seems to affect the entire frame and not just vertical straight lines on trees or buildings, but the Q cameras are a bunch of fun.