I don't find this review to be accurate, and some of the information in it is actual false. Also, it is very emotional - why? It's just a camera review for goodness sake.
The review is comparing a 5D3 out of the box to a GH2 that has been hacked... great review (i hope my sarcasm is coming through) ;-).
It seems like the author is mostly upset about the price (as are lots of people). He is mainly stating that, for the money, there are a bunch of different features that you can get on different cameras. IE - Uncompressed 4:2:2 via HDMI. I'm not saying I wouldn't want that in my 5D3, but add another $3000 to your GH2 set up for the AJA. *Oh, you'll also be needing a rail support system and some Anton Bauer batteries to power the external recorder.
Also, he makes no statement as to the lenses he is using for the GH2/5D3 comparison.
I'm not going to lie, I personally would love a 1.6X crop from the sensor like on the Nikon. That is a bummer. But if that means I have to use Nikon glass... for get it.
Furthermore, as someone who used the 5D2 a lot for macro videography for the last 3 1/2 years... I can say without a doubt that the "jello" rolling shutter issue is vastly VASTLY improved on the camera.
And shooting super clean 6400iso footage with the CineStyle gamma setting is great!