fuzzynormal

All this going on and on about color --as if content creators could never make a good video without someone's skin tone looking like a Vermeer painting right off of the sensor.  C'mon, someone's skin tone should probably be the least of your worries with modern gear.  All of it is more than good enough. 
Sorry, I really shouldn't gripe and be an old fart about this.  
It's just that you're making interview videos for freaking YouTube.  If you have half a clue what you're doing... Sony is fine.  Panasonic is fine.  Canon is Fine.  Nikon is fine.  I mean, look what you're getting for less than 1K.  It's practically magic these days and it only costs a handful of beans.  Use it, make fun stuff, and be happy.
(Jeez, I'm seriously getting curmudgeonly about things these days.  Don't get old kids, it makes you cranky!) 
So anyway...I'd buy a G7... and why would you need a speed booster for talking head studio stuff? 

All this going on and on about color --as if content creators could never make a good video without someone's skin tone looking like a Vermeer painting right off of the sensor.  C'mon, someone's skin tone should probably be the least of your worries with modern gear.  All of it is more than good enough. 
Sorry, I really shouldn't gripe and be an old fart about this.  
It's just that you're making interview videos for freaking YouTube.  If you have half a clue what you're doing... Sony is fine.  Panasonic is fine.  Canon is Fine.  Nikon is fine.  I mean, look what you're getting for less than 1K.  It's practically magic these days and it only costs a handful of beans.  Use it, make fun stuff, and be happy.
(Jeez, I'm seriously getting curmudgeonly about things these days.  Don't get old kids, it makes you cranky!) 
So anyway...I'd buy a G7... and why would you need a speed booster for talking head studio stuff? 

Look at my avatar.  It doesn't get much smaller than that.  GM1 with a set of a110 pentax prime lenses.

Yes.  And, as the client, they also tell me what visual style they want in those videos in order for me to get paid x amount of money.  Which, in their case includes a lot of slow-mo.  
Delivering to the client what they want is usually standard operating procedure in a client/vendor relationship.  Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you're on about, but it seems contrarian to me.  
Regardless, I'm here to tell you that a client will indeed make requests for things like slow-mo, and that being the case, I use cameras that can provide it.
As it happens, I have a shoot tomorrow in which I'll be at a race track for a client and I plan on shooting slow-mo for the piece.  60p conformed to 24p, but I would have certainly provided 120p slow-mo if the client could have paid a bit more in the budget.
Also, it'll be the first time I use the Xpro2 on a paying gig (as the B-Cam).  We'll see how it goes.

The more I see of modern cams, the more I'm convinced that as long as one knows what they're doing, they can accomplish anything and make it look awesome.  It's only going to get cheaper and better.  Based on these sorts of examples, I'd only be hesitant to shoot with the JVC because of build quality rather than IQ...and only because I've been burned with some of their cheap camcorders in the past; might be different now.
What one can do with $1K in gear is staggering to me.  And if you can spend 10K, you should be in IQ heaven.
Feels like we're all sort of on the other side of the pro-level IQ acquisition hump for consumers, the sort of reward that the 5DII promised those handful of years ago.  Man, that was fast.

The more I see of modern cams, the more I'm convinced that as long as one knows what they're doing, they can accomplish anything and make it look awesome.  It's only going to get cheaper and better.  Based on these sorts of examples, I'd only be hesitant to shoot with the JVC because of build quality rather than IQ...and only because I've been burned with some of their cheap camcorders in the past; might be different now.
What one can do with $1K in gear is staggering to me.  And if you can spend 10K, you should be in IQ heaven.
Feels like we're all sort of on the other side of the pro-level IQ acquisition hump for consumers, the sort of reward that the 5DII promised those handful of years ago.  Man, that was fast.

No.  I color grade my videos, but I don't pull or push too much so I haven't even bothered with the FLAT

I've been using the em100/EM5II for real estate "profile" videos.  Lots of talking heads and such.  Short shoots that last an hour or so.  I've done close to 40 of them so far.  While that real estate stuff isn't on my vimeo page, this one below is very similar in style and used the same em100/EM5II set-up:
 
I don't have the EM5II spec sheet in front of me. I don't know what Ω it prefers, but it plays nice enough with the Sennheiser.  I'm not going to say it is wonderful audio. I've got gear that does better, but it's not horrible either --and it works well enough for me to use it without any stress that it's going to fail.

Wow.  Ed O'Neil is playing guitar in a Raleigh North Carolina bar band?
Seriously though, good capabilities.  I'd stop that 1.2 down a touch though.  It's actually kind of amusing to see "night" shots a bit over exposed.  Technology these days is impressive.

Indeed.  Add to that the consideration that video is moving into a post-technical world, I think.  Not that tech is unimportant and the foundation of video, but the fact that even the base-line of stuff will be soon be more than "good enough" and video tech in general will become a raw commodity.
In less than a decade you're going to have just about everyone in developed countries shooting 8k on their phones and easily putting it online through any number of services.
From there it becomes less of "how awesome is your video tech" and what sort of advantage do you offer that allows me to share it?  How can I grab eyeballs with my content and can I do it better with hubbub.com vs. kablooey.com?
How the files get served, how information is controlled, how can I monetize my stuff with your service, etc.
The tech side will be a low priority.

Indeed.  Add to that the consideration that video is moving into a post-technical world, I think.  Not that tech is unimportant and the foundation of video, but the fact that even the base-line of stuff will be soon be more than "good enough" and video tech in general will become a raw commodity.
In less than a decade you're going to have just about everyone in developed countries shooting 8k on their phones and easily putting it online through any number of services.
From there it becomes less of "how awesome is your video tech" and what sort of advantage do you offer that allows me to share it?  How can I grab eyeballs with my content and can I do it better with hubbub.com vs. kablooey.com?
How the files get served, how information is controlled, how can I monetize my stuff with your service, etc.
The tech side will be a low priority.

I'm curious, in your opinion, is it more rewarding to make a living creating motion pictures for clients --or creating photo gear content on youtube and social media?  Also, how much traffic do you need to actually generate some sort of practical revenue?

It's a new era if Vimeo fails to compete.  It's a tough market.  I hope they succeed as, from what I can tell, their VOD streaming service is fair to indy filmmakers...but the tech needs to keep up.
The fact that a VOD film I have on the site doesn't pop up when doing a search of my production company name is maddening.
If anyone knows another VOD service that has a better revenue sharing scheme with equal streaming quality, please inform!

For what it's worth, I think protests like what y'all did are great.  However, if you want to talk about insane, imagine being a documentarian and willingly going into situation like this:
 

Insane run 'n gun?  I don't know about that.  Looks like it's less demanding than what most, documentary, news, corporate, and wedding shooters have been doing for decades.

It's a new era if Vimeo fails to compete.  It's a tough market.  I hope they succeed as, from what I can tell, their VOD streaming service is fair to indy filmmakers...but the tech needs to keep up.
The fact that a VOD film I have on the site doesn't pop up when doing a search of my production company name is maddening.
If anyone knows another VOD service that has a better revenue sharing scheme with equal streaming quality, please inform!

It's a new era if Vimeo fails to compete.  It's a tough market.  I hope they succeed as, from what I can tell, their VOD streaming service is fair to indy filmmakers...but the tech needs to keep up.
The fact that a VOD film I have on the site doesn't pop up when doing a search of my production company name is maddening.
If anyone knows another VOD service that has a better revenue sharing scheme with equal streaming quality, please inform!

I currently shoot a lot of video on a EM5II, and the XPro2 has better IQ.  So it's certainly capable of making pretty images.  I'd say it all depends on how often you want to shoot video, what you want the results to look like, and how much you prioritize the video experience over stills.
I'm still getting used to making the XPro2 work smoothly as a video cam.  Like all "hybrid" photography cams that do video, it's got quirks so I need to get used to them.  Seems like it'll be easy enough to do though.  I mean, I shoot video with the GM1.  If that's possible, then the XPro2 won't be any issue.
As a photography camera, I think it's the best thing Fuji has on the market right now.  The old school knob control is perfection, IMHO.  So much better than the X100's.  Everything is much more refined than the X100's too.  There's nothing on the X100's that the XPro2 doesn't do better.

Wow.  Ed O'Neil is playing guitar in a Raleigh North Carolina bar band?
Seriously though, good capabilities.  I'd stop that 1.2 down a touch though.  It's actually kind of amusing to see "night" shots a bit over exposed.  Technology these days is impressive.

Be sure to check out http://f16.click Kevin Mullins' blog for more insight about the Xpro2 if you're interested.

Not sure where using a Xpro2 will take me when it comes to video, but like most cams these days it has certain strengths, for sure.
 

Not sure where using a Xpro2 will take me when it comes to video, but like most cams these days it has certain strengths, for sure.
 

Indeed.  It's one of the fascinating things to me regarding US politics insomuch as the pro biz party also has in its corner the evangelical religious folks, who you'd think would be pretty clear headed about the morality of things.  Then again, maybe they're not really that concerned with a philosophical morality, only how they perceive their own.  
Anyway, I'm on record as saying I don't think capitalism makes it out of the 21st century.  That's not exactly great insight.  Many people smarter than me are on board with that assertion.  I mean, look, less than 100 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people on the planet.  I mean, I'm not against affluence, but hoarding wealth is just not healthy for a culture.  It is immoral.  Society is just going in the wrong direction; does;t mean we're doomed, just that we need to adjust.
Enterprising people and moneymakers will always be around, but the system and culture of modern capitalism is too reliant on gluttony and exploitation to survive the social and economic stresses of the future.  I suppose it could be argued that it's gone already, if it ever really existed in the first place.  How does one see an "invisible hand" anyway? ;-)  I doubt Adam Smith would even approve of the twisted version of his system as practiced today.
Unions are really the only effective way, right now, to push back against those that willingly exploit.  
And unions aren't needed everywhere.  I assert a business, any business, can be healthy and generous without maximizing profits at the expense of their employees.  Their are nobler goals to strive for.  

Heck,
There's no reason to look at tribal culture.  I have experience with my grandmother as an example.  She and I grew up next to each other as neighbors, so I know all about her history.  
She was born in 1920 and grew up on the family farm.  It was hard labor during certain times of the year, but the hard labor side of it wasn't that daunting or time consuming.  Most of that farm life was just, as it happened, life.  You know, feeding the chickens wasn't really work per se, it's just a chore and something you do as part of your existence.  With her, her mother, and her father farming was a certainly a job often, but it was on their own terms and certainly less than 40 hours of hard labor a week.
This was during the same time that Flint was upending the manufacturing model with the establishment of the UAW about 45 miles down the road.  So, there's context to all of this.  It's not like these guys working in the factory didn't understand what their physical limits were.  Yes, we can certainly put in a lot of hours of work in a week, but parts of American culture used to know how to balance it and what was reasonable.
I don't know if something like the UAW would have happened if car manufacturing set itself up on the east coast --which had been exploiting workers quite harshly since the dawn of the industrial age and where urban life was actually a lot more demanding and competitive.
The agrarian legacy of labor expectations lasted well into the American 20th, 21st century. 
Anyway, you can also look the lives of USA farmers in the 18th and 19th century as well.  Assuming they avoided disease and dramatic injury, the quality of life was actually pretty good.  Lots of recreational time while waiting for things to happen seasonally.  It was actually normal to go to bed early, wake up in the middle of the night, spent some hours just relaxing or socializing, then going back to bed 'til dawn.  Sort of a reverse siesta.
Farmers in the States (and most USA citizens used to be farmers) played by their own rules as they decided how and when to do what they needed to do.  2/3rds of our social history was a result that rugged individualism, so if you've ever been curious why Americans culture is the way it is, there's a clue... I'd say Americans and Aussies have a very common kinship... but I'm rambling now.  Time to get back to a corporate edit and suck on some irony.

Heck,
There's no reason to look at tribal culture.  I have experience with my grandmother as an example.  She and I grew up next to each other as neighbors, so I know all about her history.  
She was born in 1920 and grew up on the family farm.  It was hard labor during certain times of the year, but the hard labor side of it wasn't that daunting or time consuming.  Most of that farm life was just, as it happened, life.  You know, feeding the chickens wasn't really work per se, it's just a chore and something you do as part of your existence.  With her, her mother, and her father farming was a certainly a job often, but it was on their own terms and certainly less than 40 hours of hard labor a week.
This was during the same time that Flint was upending the manufacturing model with the establishment of the UAW about 45 miles down the road.  So, there's context to all of this.  It's not like these guys working in the factory didn't understand what their physical limits were.  Yes, we can certainly put in a lot of hours of work in a week, but parts of American culture used to know how to balance it and what was reasonable.
I don't know if something like the UAW would have happened if car manufacturing set itself up on the east coast --which had been exploiting workers quite harshly since the dawn of the industrial age and where urban life was actually a lot more demanding and competitive.
The agrarian legacy of labor expectations lasted well into the American 20th, 21st century. 
Anyway, you can also look the lives of USA farmers in the 18th and 19th century as well.  Assuming they avoided disease and dramatic injury, the quality of life was actually pretty good.  Lots of recreational time while waiting for things to happen seasonally.  It was actually normal to go to bed early, wake up in the middle of the night, spent some hours just relaxing or socializing, then going back to bed 'til dawn.  Sort of a reverse siesta.
Farmers in the States (and most USA citizens used to be farmers) played by their own rules as they decided how and when to do what they needed to do.  2/3rds of our social history was a result that rugged individualism, so if you've ever been curious why Americans culture is the way it is, there's a clue... I'd say Americans and Aussies have a very common kinship... but I'm rambling now.  Time to get back to a corporate edit and suck on some irony.