1. To some degree I agree with this, but there are certain technical things that even the most indie film maker should/could iron out.
I really think we're missing the point if we look at this footage and are critiquing the manner in which it was shot. It's a good thing that it wasn't a perfectly lit, steadycam'd, big production that accounted for every weakness the camera could have. What would we learn from that? With enough time and money you can make any camera look great and yet not know much about what the true character of the camera is. This is like a window into what the camera is really like minus all the trappings.
2. If the article had prefaced these shots with something like, "we wanted to show what the camera looked like, ungraded, and under poor shooting conditions so we...", I would have judged it very differently.
3. Clearly Mr. Brawley is an accomplished and talented filmmaker, and I doubt he gives two shites about what some meathead like me thinks about some of his unpolished work from an unreleased camera. All I did was criticize the footage that was shown to me without any context.