Arikhan

@noone + @bigfoot

Obviously I am not the only one having some issues with the low light AF (stills) of the a7s ii:
As seen in this article...This might be a good explanation for slow AF in low light...
@webrunner5
Not necessary to get ironic. I am sure, I use enough flash and lighting - when possible....But there are many situations, when it is not possible or permitted. For example I shoot horse sports (show jumping) indoor. In Germany - in most indoor competitions - it's not allowed to use flash. When I shoot show jumping, I mostly need 1/1000s shutter. And no flash. As you see in this case, there is a real practical need for high ISO cameras having fast AF. In many cases, APS-C (7D / 7D ii) fail with noisy, not acceptable IQ (though using HQ tele with constant aperture f2.8).
In my eyes and from technical point of view, I speak of photography (implicating my quality needs) up to ISO 12.800 (on FF cameras known for good low light capabilities). Till this point it's light processing. Above this ISO, it's no more photography as processing of light, but interpretation of darkness. It might sometimes be useful, but it is not my understanding (!) of photography.
 

@bigfoot
Stills shooting:
And that is the problem, depending WHAT you shoot. If you want to shoot moving subjects (eg in low light), you need a reliable autofocus. There is not all about IQ and high ISO, but also about focusing. And that's where the a7s II fails. When shooting moving subjects in low light, you simply mostly need a decent AF. And the a7s ii sometimes (in low light) needs 4-6 seconds to focus. For moving subjects, it's simply useless. Most people don't consider that for stills: you don't only need IQ and high ISO capabilities, but excellent AF (accuracy + speed) in low light too.
And that's where even a Canon 6D (with its center AF-point) is much more reliable than a a7s ii. The Nikon D750, D4/D4S and the new D5 are herein "focusing kings" in low light, sometimes the D500, though a DX and far away for from high ISO capabilities of newer FX cameras. In complete darkness, all mentionned cameras will surely fail without additional focusing help, but ALL of them have the better AF (even in normal light) than the a7s ii - crucial for photographing moving subjects in critical lighting situations.
One famous example: The Nikon D610 is an excellent camera, with a great DR and very good high ISO capabilities (quite similar to the famous D750). But...it doesn't focus properly in the dark, it "can't see" in the dark like other low light kings...
So, if you want to shoot stills and your subjects are static, you have the time to wait on getting proper AF or focus manually, as the focus peaking of the a7s ii (and other modern cameras) is very good. If your subjects move (impredictably) and you have to capture them, then go for a stills camera known for focusing quite fast and accurately in low light...
 

@Andrew Reid
That's the point. And - as you have mentionned - it's not the first time this company lies. Confidence is important too...And there are people who don't want to give their money to companies they don't trust. Instead of investing in blatant marketing lies and spreading noncredible, bullshit advertorials, Canon could invest money in a real 1080p resolution in their DSLR cameras...Brave new world...

@Davey
So, you BELIEVE that the guy sold his pro equipment and shoots now with the 80D? Sorry, when Canon states things like this, I have to laugh. We own over 60 (!) Canon major lenses, ALL Canon Cameras since 2001 (excepting the new 5D IV and 1DX II) and I love Canon. But this statement is bullshit and a sign, that this company is on the wrong way. That's why now we are changing  (for stills) completely to Nikon, after 25 years + of Canon. Enough is enough...Vastly overpriced products, poor dynamic range and the ultraconservative attitude make Canon unbuyable for us. The 80D? A good camera for 2003. Simply 3 years too late and - excepting DPAF - no reason to buy at this price. And some morons state, they would sell exceptional cameras for filming with the 80D... Of course... :-))))

@Davey
So, you BELIEVE that the guy sold his pro equipment and shoots now with the 80D? Sorry, when Canon states things like this, I have to laugh. We own over 60 (!) Canon major lenses, ALL Canon Cameras since 2001 (excepting the new 5D IV and 1DX II) and I love Canon. But this statement is bullshit and a sign, that this company is on the wrong way. That's why now we are changing  (for stills) completely to Nikon, after 25 years + of Canon. Enough is enough...Vastly overpriced products, poor dynamic range and the ultraconservative attitude make Canon unbuyable for us. The 80D? A good camera for 2003. Simply 3 years too late and - excepting DPAF - no reason to buy at this price. And some morons state, they would sell exceptional cameras for filming with the 80D... Of course... :-))))

@Tim Sewell
Very good description of the problem. "There's honor among thieves" - that's not a special DPReview problem...It's the problem of 90% of publishers. That's why I like the "affiliate links reviewers". Transparent claims and a mostly clear business concept: people liking their reviews and tipps, can help keeping the service free by buying items through affiliate links.
The advertorials / paid editorials visualize the problem, that classical advertitzing is dead. People simply hate unsubstancial and unrealistic marketing bullshit. "Sponsored posts" is the last best hope of  a completly sick marketing industry. Nothing wrong about making money: but please stop crying out incredible marketing buillshit. Just try to inform and not fool potential customers! 
BTW: Take a look at the users comments on YT. ZERO credibility for this Canon video post. Z E R O

@dbp
I've assisted this year 2 weddings in Germany. For a wedding photography pro firm. Very clever guys, charging minimum 2.500 Euro /STILLS) per wedding (they have 5.000 EUR packages too). Till this year, they didn't work on wedding videography, but then from may on they started to offer videography services.
How they do it? Very simple: they hire a (in my opinion) very good, experienced camera man for 65 Euro per hour. He films totally about 6 hours = 390 Euro. Then he gets 150 Euro "gear tax", that is 150 Euro per day. So now we are at 540 Euro (+ 19% VAT in Germany) in total. Therefore he delivers the whole clips and sells the firm all rights to use it (without crediting!!)...
Then a freelancer who acts as cutter / colorist gets the clips. He works on them about 12 hours - for color grading editing, audio, etc. and delivers the end version of the film. He charges 47 Euro per hour of work. 47 x 12 = 564 Euro.
OK. in total, there are 540 + 564 = 1.104 Euro for filming, editing, etc. Their advertising / marketing / PR budget per wedding is round about 200 Euro. As clients don't have much clue of films, etc. and just wanting to get a nice film, there is not much talk on settings, sequences, etc. 
The company charges 3.900 Euro for the 5-minutes-wedding-film. A great business: 3.900 - 1.104 - 200 = 2.596 Euro. Sure, talking with clients, organizing, etc. takes time. BUT, this is a business. Payment is best for top marketers, not for the working jobs (film makers, etc.). The guys owning the firm know how to do business without ever buying or caring about any filming gear...They want to scale this in 2017, as they are pretty sure, there are people spending 5.000-10.000 Euro for a wedding video. They say: "It's not about pricing, it's all about marketing, positioning and promotion..."
 

@jonpais
Yeah...BUT when Samsung presented the NX1 with h.265, self proclaimed experts blamed this (talking about "downsides of the NX1"), though it was revolutionary at that time. The truth is, there are only TWO possibilities to handle footage: compressed and non compressed footage (RAW). For people aiming to work with compressed footage, there must be efficient codecs on the market. And the h.265 is doubtless an efficient codec and (from current point of view and technical knowledge) probably one of the best possibilities to handle compressed, high quality images in 4K and above. Not perfect, but at the moment a very efficient (IQ <-> compression rate) possibility...
So far the theory...But many camera manufacturers refuse the implementation of h.265 in their devices, and offer consumers low end or shitty codecs for their cameras...
Sometimes I think, buyers WANT to be kidded...One funny example: There is no Panasonic "professional" camcorder up to 3.000 Euro offering by far the same image quality as the 550 Euro GX85 - an affordable consumer hybrid camera...Guys, that's an unacceptable joke. And it only works because buyers ("professional users") just accept overpriced devices and kidding wish-wash argumentation...Best review and the only client side argument manunfacturers understand, is NOT BUYING their devices (in this case, the camcorders)...

@IronFilm
Yes, but most people I know, just downsample the 4K footage to 1080p NOT because for crop / zoom / pan, but for benefits of IQ in downscaled sequences. The lack of honest 1080p is still a shame for all manufacturers declaring the mushy something their cameras deliver as "Full HD"....The race to more and more resolution is just a blatant marketing lie, if manufacturers aren't capable to deliver the resolution they claim when selling their devices. So, the "1080p lie" is just the same as the coming "4K lie": for honest (real) 4K the manufacturers will tell us, we need 8K footage...WTF? Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p?
For sure, shooters who want to crop, zoom, or pan around are well with 4K. These possibilities are doubtless benefits of the high resolution footage. But the lack of real 1080p forces camera users to shoot in 4K. I don't like people forcing me to buy a Porsche Cayenne, when I just need a car for modest mobility purposes only...Many manufacturers don't care about our real needs and requirements - they just about caching technical lacks in their overpriced devices and care much more about marketing wish-wash...
Look, I shoot 4K too - because I love tack sharp footage. But this is my hobby. Beeing realistic, I NEED "real" 1080p only...Just because it's much easier to work with on a "normal" laptop, doesn't need much storage space as 4K, etc., and because a vast majority of today's consumers watch footage on small mobile displays or TVs with a maximum of FullHD resolution. Without any doubt, 4K is useful and "real" 4K well shooted is really beautiful...BUT: Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p? 

@tugela
Talking about h.264 and 4K and more: h.264 is for >4K, demand for more IQ and the requirement in easier and affordable editing a "no future codec". It's h.265 the codec to go when having visions of 6,5K and more, while preserving IQ of compressed footage. 
You are right! They have intelligent and creative egineers and developers, but just don't want to invest money for additional resources and fundamental changes (R&D). From economical point of view, they just want to ride the "h.264 horse" to death. It's just a matter of profit, as simple as that. That's why the NX1 was a revolutionary camera. The Samsung engineers just broke with existing rules - with fantastic results for enthusiasts and freaks. But though, Samsung retired after that...
Manufacturers are conservative and don't like dramatic changes. The only hope of independent or enthusiatic filmakers is still the competition, companies that brake existing rules and "standards", just offering their clients a little bit more for money than competitors...And that's the point bringing us back to Northrup and Andrew Reid's article: Does the film gear industry really want the "democratization" of film making by availability of affordable cameras and gear with great IQ for masses? Or should "serious fimmaking" stay in the hands of experienced companies / people with some REDs, ARRIs, and endless possibilities in lighting, editing, special effects, etc. - people with high-end gear and deep pockets, unaffordable for normal Joe?

Shoot everything at 1080p. Don't shoot yourself in the foot with 4K. Although I do like shooting ceremonies at 4K for the post crop. 
Canon skin tones are the best. Even a used 70d would be better than Sony IMO. The C100 mk1 and 2 are the best cameras for weddings IMO. I've shot a few recently with C100 mk1 and my 1DC and it's super nice. Here's a teaser I did with 1DC/ C100 combo: 
 
 
You MUST MUST MUST remember that wedding films are CONSUMER PRODUCTS. DONT EVER FORGET THIS. THIS IS 6 years of experience and over 300 weddings shot of experience talking to you. These people aren't professional filmmakers. They aren't producers. They aren't film snobs. All they want is pretty shots of them on their big day. If you shot it all with a t2i and a 50mm 1.8 they would love it because it looks "cinematic". Don't get caught up with the gear when it comes to shooting weddings. That's the biggest waste of time and money. The couples simply don't give a shit. 
I hope you enjoy it. Weddings are a fantastic way to get lots of experience and become a ninja shooter 

@IronFilm
Yes, but most people I know, just downsample the 4K footage to 1080p NOT because for crop / zoom / pan, but for benefits of IQ in downscaled sequences. The lack of honest 1080p is still a shame for all manufacturers declaring the mushy something their cameras deliver as "Full HD"....The race to more and more resolution is just a blatant marketing lie, if manufacturers aren't capable to deliver the resolution they claim when selling their devices. So, the "1080p lie" is just the same as the coming "4K lie": for honest (real) 4K the manufacturers will tell us, we need 8K footage...WTF? Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p?
For sure, shooters who want to crop, zoom, or pan around are well with 4K. These possibilities are doubtless benefits of the high resolution footage. But the lack of real 1080p forces camera users to shoot in 4K. I don't like people forcing me to buy a Porsche Cayenne, when I just need a car for modest mobility purposes only...Many manufacturers don't care about our real needs and requirements - they just about caching technical lacks in their overpriced devices and care much more about marketing wish-wash...
Look, I shoot 4K too - because I love tack sharp footage. But this is my hobby. Beeing realistic, I NEED "real" 1080p only...Just because it's much easier to work with on a "normal" laptop, doesn't need much storage space as 4K, etc., and because a vast majority of today's consumers watch footage on small mobile displays or TVs with a maximum of FullHD resolution. Without any doubt, 4K is useful and "real" 4K well shooted is really beautiful...BUT: Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p? 

@IronFilm
Yes, but most people I know, just downsample the 4K footage to 1080p NOT because for crop / zoom / pan, but for benefits of IQ in downscaled sequences. The lack of honest 1080p is still a shame for all manufacturers declaring the mushy something their cameras deliver as "Full HD"....The race to more and more resolution is just a blatant marketing lie, if manufacturers aren't capable to deliver the resolution they claim when selling their devices. So, the "1080p lie" is just the same as the coming "4K lie": for honest (real) 4K the manufacturers will tell us, we need 8K footage...WTF? Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p?
For sure, shooters who want to crop, zoom, or pan around are well with 4K. These possibilities are doubtless benefits of the high resolution footage. But the lack of real 1080p forces camera users to shoot in 4K. I don't like people forcing me to buy a Porsche Cayenne, when I just need a car for modest mobility purposes only...Many manufacturers don't care about our real needs and requirements - they just about caching technical lacks in their overpriced devices and care much more about marketing wish-wash...
Look, I shoot 4K too - because I love tack sharp footage. But this is my hobby. Beeing realistic, I NEED "real" 1080p only...Just because it's much easier to work with on a "normal" laptop, doesn't need much storage space as 4K, etc., and because a vast majority of today's consumers watch footage on small mobile displays or TVs with a maximum of FullHD resolution. Without any doubt, 4K is useful and "real" 4K well shooted is really beautiful...BUT: Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p? 

Remember most of us won't be filming in 4K for 4K deliveries, but there is benefits for 4K capture for a 1080 delivery (you can crop / zoom / pan around). 

The tools of videomakers (Smartphone, Camcorder, DSLR, Arri, Sony, etc.) are not crucial. Essential is content / information / emotionality and acceptance within your targeted audience. For technical and specification reviews, OK, quality of content is decisive. But - as Andrew said - this is all about just a small audience of freaks or enthusiasts. The "big audience" doesn't care at all about technical aspects of the films. As media consumption becomes more and more mobile (between 45 and 75%), videos/films published for internet audience and smartphones/tablets will never care about resolution, color grading or the last detail of color science. As long as viewable screens are quite "mini", as in case of smartphones and tablets, there will be no need for "extraterrestrial" 4K-8K filmmaking (from technical point of view). BUT there is a need for good/funny/informative/narrative/entertaining content. Completely indepent of the degree of technical implementation/excellence.
In RL nobody cares about "smooth/mushy" 1080p out of a Canon-DSLR or the 10%-debade on color display/differences of Canon vs. Sony/Pana. Just my 2 cents...
And even discussing about display on bigger screens than mobile ones: Take a look at surveys and serious statistics on media consumption. Current screen resolution of PC-Screens, laptop screens or consumer TVs (US, Southamerica, Europe, Westaisa) will make you laugh when debating on 4K...For most of display devices, 1080p is more than OK. Why then pixel peep about the "last 5%" difference and 300% percent crop within 4K footage? In my eyes this is absurd and narcisstic - without any significance for audience.
It's only significant if you want to make good sales by telling your future customer, that a RED and 4k/8K production are decisive for the success of the coming film. If this is not a multimillion production, this is not decisive. It's just a marketing lie. A profitable one from the point of view of providers, but still a lie...

Interesting for news makers, documentary style shooters, etc. and the growing mobile audience for video / consumers not owning 4k TVs:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/11/25/bbc-news-app-launches-vertical-video-is-the-joke-on-us/
My questions again in this context:
Who needs 4K (even downscaled 4K to 1080p) on small mobile devices? Who cares about the "ultimate" IQ as color science / contrast / sharpness on small mobile devices? 2014 there were only 2.5 percent of consumers owning 4K TVs (in Germany) --> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/4K-TV-Ultra-HD-Geraete-verkaufen-sich-kaum-2349085.html (German language) - I know, in Japan it's much more, but worlldwide, 4K display market coverage is still a joke in comparison with marketing claims of manufacturers and distributors My opinion: Till 4K and highest quality videos will get popular and viewable on bigger displays than just now, it will take years - if not a decade. Till then, it's just a matter for a few geeks and enthusiasts. From a realistic point of view, there is NO RELEVANCY and NO DEMAND for higher resolution / quality films (from point of view of IMAGE QUALITY) for web and TV at the moment...it's only relevant for a enthusiastic minority / avantgarde...

@mercer and all Nikon fans:
Fotodiox just announced an adapter for Nikon F-Mount lenses to Sony mount...adapter supports AF and lens stabilisation (VR).
So, for me - as I just ordered a D750 - and other Nikon still shooters, this will be great, as the Nikon lens collection could be combined for 4K video shooting with Sony cameras as the a6300. I've tested the D750 (stills) and it is an excellent camera, "seeing" and focusing in the dark...Great dynamic range too. And NOW one can use the good 1.8 / 1.4 primes for 4K- shooting in very low light with the cheap A6300...(hope this works as good as the FotodioxPro claims this...)
https://www.fotodioxpro.com/products/nikg-snye-fusion

My experience: "Pro" means in fact 70% very good marketing and sales skills,,,Only 30% is about filmmaking skills. And marketing skills means, try to impress customers with technical assets, specifications and "spectacular" or expensive looking gear. Professional and successful work (from the point of view of the customer) has nothing to do with stellar expensive gear - but this is something, most customers don't know... ;-)
At the end of the day, the story is quite simple for filmmakers doing paid jobs: the result should be the most important criterion: acceptance, views, sales, reactions and impact of targeted audience...But after failing, many film providers try to perform lame excuses by pointing to technical criteria as excellent resolution, contrast, color and image quality...I never saw a RED shooter admitting, his work was worthless for the client... :-))
The gear doesn't tell any story - even an 8K RED is useless as storyteller. And it's all about a story and emotion...

My experience: "Pro" means in fact 70% very good marketing and sales skills,,,Only 30% is about filmmaking skills. And marketing skills means, try to impress customers with technical assets, specifications and "spectacular" or expensive looking gear. Professional and successful work (from the point of view of the customer) has nothing to do with stellar expensive gear - but this is something, most customers don't know... ;-)
At the end of the day, the story is quite simple for filmmakers doing paid jobs: the result should be the most important criterion: acceptance, views, sales, reactions and impact of targeted audience...But after failing, many film providers try to perform lame excuses by pointing to technical criteria as excellent resolution, contrast, color and image quality...I never saw a RED shooter admitting, his work was worthless for the client... :-))
The gear doesn't tell any story - even an 8K RED is useless as storyteller. And it's all about a story and emotion...

It's all about content and striking the right note:
A very successful German viral video (poor filmmaking quality but very emotional yet...): 
5,6 Mllion views (for German language only and NON-advert, quite impressive), 46.978 likes,1.240 comments, 179.495 shares...The camera? I'm pretty sure, it wasn't an Arri or RED... ;-)
I think, if you are an artist or an ambitious filmmaker, you want people to watch your work. If you want this, you must provide some beautiful,interesting, informative or emotional content. And therefore, you mostly don't need a perfect or even very expensive camera. For people wanting to sell their filmmaker capabilities for paid work, it might be fine to present a maximum of technical capabilities (though mostly useless for potential customers...) - but it has nothing to do with filmmaking, but just selfmarketing of technical skills.
As said, I am 17 years old, scholar and shoot with Canon, NX1 and some Pana gear. In the last 2 years I assisted some filmmaker people shooting with RED, Sony, Canon C100/C300...85% of the work of these firms was for web, 15% for German film theater or trade show films. By far the most part of the work was from technical point of view well done...but abortive for the target audience. No views on internet, people just disapproving after watching. The filmmakers didn't struck the right cord with their film...People simply didn't understand the message or disagreed...and leaved without spreading...They didn't even say, it was beautiful...

The tools of videomakers (Smartphone, Camcorder, DSLR, Arri, Sony, etc.) are not crucial. Essential is content / information / emotionality and acceptance within your targeted audience. For technical and specification reviews, OK, quality of content is decisive. But - as Andrew said - this is all about just a small audience of freaks or enthusiasts. The "big audience" doesn't care at all about technical aspects of the films. As media consumption becomes more and more mobile (between 45 and 75%), videos/films published for internet audience and smartphones/tablets will never care about resolution, color grading or the last detail of color science. As long as viewable screens are quite "mini", as in case of smartphones and tablets, there will be no need for "extraterrestrial" 4K-8K filmmaking (from technical point of view). BUT there is a need for good/funny/informative/narrative/entertaining content. Completely indepent of the degree of technical implementation/excellence.
In RL nobody cares about "smooth/mushy" 1080p out of a Canon-DSLR or the 10%-debade on color display/differences of Canon vs. Sony/Pana. Just my 2 cents...
And even discussing about display on bigger screens than mobile ones: Take a look at surveys and serious statistics on media consumption. Current screen resolution of PC-Screens, laptop screens or consumer TVs (US, Southamerica, Europe, Westaisa) will make you laugh when debating on 4K...For most of display devices, 1080p is more than OK. Why then pixel peep about the "last 5%" difference and 300% percent crop within 4K footage? In my eyes this is absurd and narcisstic - without any significance for audience.
It's only significant if you want to make good sales by telling your future customer, that a RED and 4k/8K production are decisive for the success of the coming film. If this is not a multimillion production, this is not decisive. It's just a marketing lie. A profitable one from the point of view of providers, but still a lie...

@kidzrevil
As said in this thread, in my eyes you need much more marketing skills (nowadays social media, YT- / Vimeo marketing, etc.) than filmmaking skills to be successful as filmmaker. It's all about hype and publicity, not all about quality or artistic aspects...Mostly...Though sometimes, there are serious filmmakers expressing emotion,, beauty, joy, sadness or even some interesting information in their films. The age of (low budget) artistic filmmaking is - in my eyes - over. Exceptions prove the rule...
There are many "iPhone Tarantinos" nowadays and some of them spread very successful their "content" - aka films. Millions of clicks and views in Social Media, sometimes some weeks or months of fame...These guys are the new sheriffs in the town...Quick and dirty - and sometimes very successful....

it seems to me that complaints about the codec not being editable come from people who have never touched the camera. i can edit that 500 mbit/s footage on my i5 (!), gtx770, 8gb (!) ram pc in realtime. i even edit it on my 13'' macbook pro in final cut using proxies with zero lag. 

@DPC
The main asset of these "professionals" is sales: saling their clients their style to shoot, compose, color science, etc. Look @DPC and @Richard Bugg, there are tons of PAID bullshit videos/films out there. Because the film companies found someone to pay for it, these are not necessarly good films. First point....second point, could you define "good filmic work"? I think there are thousands of opinions on this...
Let me give you an example: The so called "cinematic look" (Grading, shallow DOF, etc.) is not a big point in the eyes of many GERMAN clients. Many clients simply don't care about it. Many German corporate clients care about SHARPNESS and contrast - the same they care about when watching TV....OK, there might be some, who can be "convinced" to move to a Hollywood look. But generally they don't care...
So, filming companies who do much paid work are good sales people. There are so many independent (and in my eyes talented) filmmakers all over the world, who never sale a piece of their work...Economical success is not the same as successful filmic work...
Now on the 1DX II: I like this camera, but it's not affordable for me. It's a perfect still camera for almost all purposes (excepting highest resolution needs), unbeaten in sports photography, top notch in low light, well build, usable, rugged, top ergonomics. I know many journalists / documentary and narrative workers who use it. One of them is a good friend of mine and he is editing the Canon 4K footage on a i7 1.900,- Euro PC. So what? If you are talking about professionalism, you should consider, that working with this kind of files is normal (RAW eg). The fact, that this workflow might not be affordable for many enthusiasts like me, does not mean, that this is a bad codec. You just need some computing power for editing, but this is absolutely normal for people working on higher level or with RAW...
The DPAF is amazing. Even if some "professionals" claim, in professional work there is "no need" for a excellent AF. There is one. And some professionals use it excessively. Not everyone shooting films has a brigade of focus pullers or can shoot a scene over days ad ultimo...The excellent DPAF of the 1DX II is just a very useful tool, helping shooters to save money...

@jasonmillard81 I don't have any demo for this. That said, there are many many samples for high low-light capabilities of the D750, A7R II, 5Dm2...These 3 cameras (OK + Canon 1DXm2 + Nikon D3S + D4, etc.). Furthermore the fantastic focusing skills of the D750 in very low light are proven in real world conditions by many photographers. Even the A7R II is in low-light focusing questionable...So this is not only all about IQ but focusing capabilities too...And herein I don't have ANY proof for the Fuji.
Furthermore, don't forget TCO. As said, the X-T2 is all in all not very affordable for me...