fuzzynormal

​Sure, that could happen. What you propose is a hypothetical possibility. I don't, however, think it's a realistic possibility. As for the Ex Tele on the GX7, I use vintage glass at maximum aperture for a lot of what I do. As such, I just stay away from the digital zoom with video. Yes, for some, it's perfectly useable, especially with new lenses stopped down a touch.

​I just think they're using older inferior sensor tech 'kuz it's cheaper --and they don't have the option business-wise to really do otherwise. Bottom lines, spreadsheets, and all that. I can't quite grasp your logic that Panasonic or some other competitor will devalue their IQ for stabilization. That line of thinking just seems...odd. But I'm not that much of a pixel peeper that I dismiss that 5-axis stabilization. I don't always need awesome resolution and sharpness to capture the video I want. Sometimes I need great steady shots shots fast and easy. On those occasions, looks like the EM5II will be my camera. I shot some documentary stuff with both the GX7 and EM5II tonight. Got some shots with the EM5II that I couldn't do with the GX7. Got some GX7 shots I couldn't do with the EM5II. No big deal. Although, I have to say, the GX7 IQ is crazy good for less than $500. I have a series coming up in which I need a third camera for static coverage. I'll be buying another GX7 for that. Plus, I really like the ergos on the Panasonic. So yeah, at this point I still prefer the GX7, but I could see warming to the EM5II, even with its limitations. It's just a tool. BTW, my shooting has revealed that the 2x mode on the EM5II is pretty much worthless. The IQ is way too compromised. I feel the same way about the Panasonic "Ex Tele." Also, an annoying quirk I ran into on the EM5II is that the record button fails to engage at times. Push push push push push...nothing. Why? Not sure yet. I think it might be because a dial or button might be activated by accident. (There's a lot of stuff on that camera body) And my fingers maybe are inadvertently doing something I'm unaware of. Additionally the EVF and LCD have both turned off simultaneously on occasion. Power cycle brings it back. Still buggy or user error? Who knows? Other issues: In the dark, improper exposure in M/S/A/P mode. Fine in movie mode. Weird. Lens auto focused during movie shooting --while in Manual focus mode, and this was with an Oly lens. Strange. Again, I may be creating some ignorant activations of things being kinda rusty on the Oly interface, but my impression is that it's bugs and kinks in the firmware. Don't recall these issues with the original EM5 when I used it. I'll end on a good note: The video compression is a lot more robust now. Seems to hold up well.

It's the "muted" selection with everything turned down, including sharpness. But, again, I'm just experimenting. The color balance is deliberately warm and it's over-exposed on purpose. Plus, the lens I was using has an adapter with a light leak. All that sort of fun stuff, messing around seeing what happens.

​I shoot manual, even with AF lenses, so I'm adjusting exposure via ISO and f-stop on just about every shot. Sometimes I'll slow down the shutter too for a little exposure help. Anyway, I'd like ISO and Shutter on the wheels, but there's plenty of customization options that make whatever you want to do kinda easy, if not ideal. I've got my cam customized so I never have to take my eye off the EVF to make anything happen. Not that I'm doing much now shooting-wise anyway, just farting around. Here's a bunch of truly random overexposed handheld shots straight from the camera uploaded to YT with a 1980's 24mm 2.8 lens. Some shots punched in with the 2x digital zoom. Not that these images tell you much about the M5II (except it's got moiré and we all knew that) but people like looking at random footage for no good reason and analyzing it completely out of context, so here's some more:

​Yeah. The Olympus can be operated a bunch of ways. Anyone actually making motion pictures with it and adjusting it that way, though; i.e.: having to break off a shot to access a basic exposure function? I'd suggest to customize/program your controls so you don't have to move your hands around.

​It's the default stabilization on the original EM5. I shot this in 1080 30p about half a year ago with the Panasonic 100-300 lens. No, you couldn't do this with just the lens OIS and a Panasonic body. I had my GX7 on this trip too and when I tried to grab a few hand held shots with that, there was just way too much movement. Stabilizing those GX7 shots in post would not be practical. 600mm is a long, long way. As it was I had to lean my body against a solid object and then hold my breath. This way I could still the lens just enough to get a useable shot with Oly's 5-axis stabilizer working at its limit. ...And this is why I'm disappointed by the Oly video capabilities. That stabilizer is a killer feature. If their current video IQ was clean and didn't have the moire, they'd have a real competitive camera for the market. As it is, well, Andrew's OP sums it up best. All that said, I still got the EM5II. It fits for many of the gigs I do so it's a good tool for me.

​Yeah, I think it looks good too. That's shot with the original EM5. It's the Panasonic 100-300 lens at full zoom. So it would be a ff equivalent focal length over 600mm on the Oly. And yes, those are heat waves you're seeing in the shot. That's what happens shooting through those extreme distances. The atmosphere is bending the light. But the crazy thing to me is that I got that without a tripod @600mm. I mean, that's just nuts.

shallow DOF shot on the m5 is going to look "better" than, say, a f11 shot of a rooftop cityscape in Europe. Both examples are online. They show the potential and weakness of the camera. Point is, it's a decent cam, just could be stronger w/video. And it's not always what you shoot, but how you do it. So as mat33 is saying, you can make it work...or not. Here's a video exposing the cam's weakness: https://vimeo.com/119316833

It's a 600mm shot. That's kind of a long lens. The photons are traveling through a lot of atmosphere in a jungle, after a rain fall, at 95° Fahrenheit. And the posted resolution of the video is 846x468. Yes, I turn down the sharpening all the way. Pixel peeping on this shot? Not a good idea. Point of me posting this is that I got watchable video with a handheld camera and a 600mm focal length.

Here's what's frustrating: The video is old 7D quality. In 2015 Oly should be more competitive than that. But, the stabilization is a freaking great tool. Will decent video and Oly's 5-axis ever unite? One day, just not today. So, as we cry in all our collective internet tears, here's a clip that shows why we're longing for Oly to merge great video with great stabilization. It's not much by way of a good shot, but keep in mind it's shot HANDHELD at a 600mm FFEquiv focal length. Yes. 600mm. Handheld. This shot would be impossible otherwise: SPRK-150.mp4

Since I purchased this camera for specific gigs that I do often: run 'n gun small biz profiles for the web @30p, the question I'm asking myself right now is, "Should I return the M5II and go back to the original E-M5?" As a video camera there's not a lot of difference between the two...except about half the price. Sure, all the internet stuff raves about how the video quality is increased, and it is to an extent, but is it enough? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, just wish none of this was even a consideration. Such a shame it is.

​Yea! Lawsons. Strawberry custard sandwiches on white bread (no crust)

​Yeah, I get that, but there's always been a serious disconnect between the makers at Olympus and the marketing guys. So you know, you check out the video spec sheet on an upcoming cam and think, "Well, okay, maybe this time, let's hope!" I did. You did. That's the game, isn't it? With Olympus, you confront their reality of video. With Panasonic, now Sony, or even Nikon you get to kind of embrace the reality. I mean the A7s video is bonkers. But compare the numbers on the specification page and you're not going to read much difference. The spec sheets for 1080 are pretty similar across brands. As we know, the actual output is not. All that said, I'll be using it on low-end video work (not cinema ;-) so I can accept the shortcomings and utilize that one saving grace: 5-axis stabilization. Meh. I think we'd all love to be impressed by Oly and we just ain't.

​Same here. Such potential wasted, but that's the MO with Olympus and video. Panasonic have been exceeding expectations, but poor Oly (I'm rooting for the underdog!) just never seems to make it happen. Like a few other camera companies, video is an afterthought. Anyway, shortcomings are what they are. Using the kit in real life for my needs might justify keeping it. Haven't decided yet, but I'll put it through paces and see how I feel down the road.

​Eye-ball estimation, that? So, that turns a 12mm lens into about a ff-equivilant 32mm. A 50 becomes a 135, etc. Bummer. Not to mention it ruins all my easy 2x math calculations when putting lenses onto a M43 camera. 12 to 24 -- I can add that up. Slap a decimal into the mix and I get stupider than I already am.

With everything being pretty dang equal IQ wise these days, I don't really agree with that. But that's me. I think I'd rather work on story, style, directing, etc. I believe those are the things that really matter and impress viewers if one is trying to establish a creative film career. However, if you're trying to impress colleagues that specialize as camera technicians I suppose it's a different story. I just don't think that the path to being an accomplished filmmaker follows the technical side of things as much as many assume it does. You got to walk down that road, sure, but it's not where you should do the most of your traveling. So say I. (aka: not an accomplished filmmaker)

Some of the best low budget indy films I've seen in the past few years have been shot on a T2i. And that camera has inferior IQ. So, you know, it really is what you do with the story and your cinematography. All elements of a production matter, and I love a nice new camera a much as anyone, but camera gear making or breaking one's success? No, I don't abide by that notion. andrgl is being facetious with that iPhone rhetoric, but the reality is such that any modern imaging device in the hands of a competent user is a viable tool. If you're a film making student of any accomplishment I'm sure you've noticed that some off your classmates are more capable than others. Why is that? Because of the camera they use or because of their ability, their curiosity, their ambition. All that said, those Panasonic GX7's, GM1's and G6's are really cheap right now.

I think I'm just going to have to come to terms with Olympus being far behind the video curve. And I am. Again, just wish I didn't have to. It is a little crazy to me that I can buy cameras for half as much with very superior 1080 video, but that's the reality. Ultimately it's a concession I can tolerate, but...man, they are missing out on a great niche market with video. And it's a market that I believe is undervalued. maybe not in numbers, but in prestige. Its like an automobile manufacturer that makes a performance model that increases their brand value. For Oly could that be the em1 mark II? Who knows. Probably not And, really, it's not like they have to be better than the competition IQ wise, just comparable. More than anything, that's the frustration with Oly. They have such great potential. So close, but so far kinda thing. All that said I do know it'll be a very useable tool for MY needs, (I'm knowledgeable enough to compensate for the shortcoming) but my needs fit a small subset of people that are video centric; most video people are going to dismiss it.

No. I have a gx7. (And a gm1) I can buy those for less than $500. The video is awesome on that camera On on your other points I agree. Yes, the em5ii can shoot good enough video, just not sure why it's not as good as it should be.

I'm not striving for the best resolution, I'm striving for the best shot as fast as friggin' possible. That means handheld, mobile, and steady. Yes, I want Olympus to compete in the video sharpness arena and, just like Andrew, I'm kind of upset they are not. But, when I'm honest, I know the low-end-corporate shoots do not require the latest and greatest 1080 image. It was hard to pull the trigger on getting something IQ inferior, but for me the 5axis feature does make up for that shortcoming.

To be fair, my neighbor's dog is really cute.

Where can I sign up for the free-flowing world of online camera nerdery?

I do think Ed's post reflects a time that's been a long time coming, has arrived, but some may not have adapted to it yet. And ics is right on target too. Basically, the gear is beyond good enough and it's so cheap that anyone from almost any economic class can acquire one. Let's be honest. If you have the chops you could make a smartphone movie as artistic as anything out there. Maybe not likely, but possible. In the past with video equipment, having a new gear really could make significant difference. Investing in that gear was cost prohibitive for beginners. These days, since just about anyone can afford the stuff, the only thing that's really going to make significantly noticeable improvement to a video production is one's skill and artistic level. Yes, the pros will always have better cameras and lenses and many will covet that rare exclusivity. However, the divide between low and high is now, practically speaking, indistinguishable. If I had a time machine I'd love to go back and drop a GM1, lens mounting adapters, and a laptop on Kubrick or Leone's production facility's front door and let them have at it. Something tells me they and their crew would do alright.

​I'm part of the choir, preacher; lost my strong desire for gear ownership years ago. Couldn't see the point of it at the level I'm at. To keep your metaphor going: I just need to practice my fade away jump shot because too many of my videos have been clanging off the rim lately.

​Well, if a junior technician says it's possible, then "hooray!" good enough for the internet.