fuzzynormal

​There's no singular answer.  They're all good.  It comes down to what kind of footage/style you're trying to get.  If you can articulate that, then you can get some really good advice here.
(Not from me though, but from other folks that seriously analyze the IQ stuff.  I tend to believe it's how you use a camera, not the gear itself.  This opinion of mine is in the minority so take what I say with a grain of salt.) 
At any rate, I tend to believe if you can't articulate in detail what you're trying to do, then the answer can seriously be: "get anything." This would be because you're not likely not going to be doing much considered or sophisticated shooting anyway.  That being the case, just about any new camera will allow you to grab some pretty great shots.
Except Fuji.  Don't buy Fuji for video.  Even that IQ is too lousy for me.

​FWIW, the EM5II is nice and all, but it's not going to give you the same functionality as a gimbal.  I just use it for short shots kuz that's what I do most of the time.  Short PR edits. But, if you wanted to do a looooong tracking shot following a character around and needed the camera to transition through some pretty aggressive moves and still keep things smooth, the internal 5-axis on-a-sensor isn't going to like that.  I think you'd see some significant warping.  
You'd definitely want a more professional tool/gimbal in that case.  Also, the EM5II is pretty decent IQ, but it's certainly inferior to a lot of other stuff on the <$1K market.
Don't want to hijack the thread here, it's all just food for thought.  Since it worked for me, maybe it would work for you.  Depends.  If you want to see a lot of words agonizing over the EM5II, this is where you should go:

Here's some stabilized footage I shot a few days back for a goofy corporate gig.  Might give you an idea how certain moves and some very basic shots can be enhanced with the technology:
 
 

Here's some stabilized footage I shot a few days back for a goofy corporate gig.  Might give you an idea how certain moves and some very basic shots can be enhanced with the technology:
 
 

I recommend you put completely 100% out of your head any thoughts about how "future proof" your ability to use your camera in 5 years will be. 

We're moving at a far too fast a pace for that to matter. And cameras are far too cheap for that to matter. 
 Instead pick what is right for you right now. (or perhaps in the next 6 months, or 12 months, but don't be looking any further out than that)
Look at a couple of examples:

Sony PMW-F3 is a camera that I just purchased last week for not much more than a grand, yet less than five years ago this camera cost US$20,000! (when you factor in the s-log upgrade) This was one of the hottest cameras back then, and was very very pricey.

Now consider the Panasonic GH2, also only less than 5 years old, and also was for its time the hottest camera around and cost a not terribly dissimilar amount to what a GH4/NX1 costs today. How much do they go for now? Only a couple of hundred bucks or so.

Conclusion: in 5 years time you'll be able to pick up the (former) hottest tech for pennies on the dollar, and also you'll be able to affordably buy new tech which is leaps and bounds ahead of it.

​I do entire shoots with 5-axis.  I love it; works for me.  
I agree with your opinion that stabilization can look very artificial when the camera is moving.  It's a tool on my EM5II that works very well for grabbing static shots without a tripod (which I do often) and for mimicking a short slider shot...but you have to practice at it, much like using a glide-cam type rig.
For much of the corporate crap I do, I prefer a quiet lens.  For those shoots I'm trying to keep what I do as neutral and transparent as possible.  I don't want to call attention to my shooting and/or editing.  I put their stories at the forefront and the production style is conservative.
I also concur with your assertion, Implement the 5-axis technology in an intelligent pragmatic way and it's a wonderful thing.  
We all should keep in mind that a lot of shooters you see on the youtubes haven't a clue or are just messing around with testing, (5 minutes of walking though as park handheld?  Who would use that in an edit anyway?) so judging by their work is a mistake. 
And let's be honest, a lot of prosumer enthusiasts can also be talent-limited, assuming that IS or OIS is some sort of panacea that'll make their footage wonderful. Um, no.  If you stink as a shooter in general, your stabilized footage will do the same. (those Canadian guys from that camera store come to mind.  They're gear geeks and can tell you the ins and outs of a camera's functionality, yes, but they're not the best shooters and the footage always looks subpar to what a particular camera can do.)  
Finally, don't forget, if your camera has 5-axis stabilization, you can always turn it off too. 

​I do entire shoots with 5-axis.  I love it; works for me.  
I agree with your opinion that stabilization can look very artificial when the camera is moving.  It's a tool on my EM5II that works very well for grabbing static shots without a tripod (which I do often) and for mimicking a short slider shot...but you have to practice at it, much like using a glide-cam type rig.
For much of the corporate crap I do, I prefer a quiet lens.  For those shoots I'm trying to keep what I do as neutral and transparent as possible.  I don't want to call attention to my shooting and/or editing.  I put their stories at the forefront and the production style is conservative.
I also concur with your assertion, Implement the 5-axis technology in an intelligent pragmatic way and it's a wonderful thing.  
We all should keep in mind that a lot of shooters you see on the youtubes haven't a clue or are just messing around with testing, (5 minutes of walking though as park handheld?  Who would use that in an edit anyway?) so judging by their work is a mistake. 
And let's be honest, a lot of prosumer enthusiasts can also be talent-limited, assuming that IS or OIS is some sort of panacea that'll make their footage wonderful. Um, no.  If you stink as a shooter in general, your stabilized footage will do the same. (those Canadian guys from that camera store come to mind.  They're gear geeks and can tell you the ins and outs of a camera's functionality, yes, but they're not the best shooters and the footage always looks subpar to what a particular camera can do.)  
Finally, don't forget, if your camera has 5-axis stabilization, you can always turn it off too. 

​I do entire shoots with 5-axis.  I love it; works for me.  
I agree with your opinion that stabilization can look very artificial when the camera is moving.  It's a tool on my EM5II that works very well for grabbing static shots without a tripod (which I do often) and for mimicking a short slider shot...but you have to practice at it, much like using a glide-cam type rig.
For much of the corporate crap I do, I prefer a quiet lens.  For those shoots I'm trying to keep what I do as neutral and transparent as possible.  I don't want to call attention to my shooting and/or editing.  I put their stories at the forefront and the production style is conservative.
I also concur with your assertion, Implement the 5-axis technology in an intelligent pragmatic way and it's a wonderful thing.  
We all should keep in mind that a lot of shooters you see on the youtubes haven't a clue or are just messing around with testing, (5 minutes of walking though as park handheld?  Who would use that in an edit anyway?) so judging by their work is a mistake. 
And let's be honest, a lot of prosumer enthusiasts can also be talent-limited, assuming that IS or OIS is some sort of panacea that'll make their footage wonderful. Um, no.  If you stink as a shooter in general, your stabilized footage will do the same. (those Canadian guys from that camera store come to mind.  They're gear geeks and can tell you the ins and outs of a camera's functionality, yes, but they're not the best shooters and the footage always looks subpar to what a particular camera can do.)  
Finally, don't forget, if your camera has 5-axis stabilization, you can always turn it off too. 

​Indeed, and I already do this quite often.  
Seeing as how a speedbooster will get focal-length and f/stop numbers into similar territory as FF (or s35) equivalent counterparts, how it renders and bends the light differently is a  consideration.  Thanks for the other advice too.  

​Yeah, I've done stuff with FD's on the FS700 and enjoyed the results, so getting 1 or 2 FD primes would be a nice addition to the pile of lenses that keep accumulating...

Fake or not, I'm not sure why people judge a camera's IQ capabilities when in the hands of obvious amateurs posting junk on youtube.  
Well, I guess if they want to see the limitations of the default settings and images made by GAS geeks with no visual skills...
And it's not just amateurs.  I mean, let's recall that official NX1 film about the lady in the fridge.  That looked lame as heck, but we all know the camera has potential well beyond what was on display in that instance. 

​Definitely not.  
Brand loyalty, a strong hard-wired-to-the-brain-physiological-effect that marketers have been successfully exploiting for generations gets in the way of rationality.  Humans are irrational people when willingly or unwillingly ignorant --and they rely on those "gut-decisions," typically based on familiarity, in those instances.  Advertisers know this and it's why advertisements/marketing is most often built not to actively sell product but to get the familiarity of the brand stuck in your mind in a welcoming way.  After all, Coca-Cola ads never sell the actual thing, they sell happiness, love, and comfort.  And to get it you're encouraged to buy the can/bottle with their logo on it.  Same with imaging.  You want to be a great photographer you HAVE to buy a" Canikon" ...because that's what just about everybody has familiarity with.  You heard about it, you know people that use it, etc.
So, as us filmmakers/photographers get more informed we can make more rational decisions.  Newbies can't really do this as they don't grasp the details as well, so they'll most likely tend toward Canon and Nikon unless actively exposed to different ideas.
This post is an excellent example of explaining those different ideas in the context of making motion pictures.  It might seem redundant to us that have been in the market for awhile, but for somebody new to it, it'll be very helpful just as a way to understand how to consider things they've never considered.
Good job on articulating those basics Ebrahim, it'll definitely help someone in the future!  If I could up vote this or pin it to the top of the page, I would absolutely do so!

Even with a 16stops camera, shitty light will always look shitty.

​Definitely not.  
Brand loyalty, a strong hard-wired-to-the-brain-physiological-effect that marketers have been successfully exploiting for generations gets in the way of rationality.  Humans are irrational people when willingly or unwillingly ignorant --and they rely on those "gut-decisions," typically based on familiarity, in those instances.  Advertisers know this and it's why advertisements/marketing is most often built not to actively sell product but to get the familiarity of the brand stuck in your mind in a welcoming way.  After all, Coca-Cola ads never sell the actual thing, they sell happiness, love, and comfort.  And to get it you're encouraged to buy the can/bottle with their logo on it.  Same with imaging.  You want to be a great photographer you HAVE to buy a" Canikon" ...because that's what just about everybody has familiarity with.  You heard about it, you know people that use it, etc.
So, as us filmmakers/photographers get more informed we can make more rational decisions.  Newbies can't really do this as they don't grasp the details as well, so they'll most likely tend toward Canon and Nikon unless actively exposed to different ideas.
This post is an excellent example of explaining those different ideas in the context of making motion pictures.  It might seem redundant to us that have been in the market for awhile, but for somebody new to it, it'll be very helpful just as a way to understand how to consider things they've never considered.
Good job on articulating those basics Ebrahim, it'll definitely help someone in the future!  If I could up vote this or pin it to the top of the page, I would absolutely do so!

You can wait forever for the next best thing.  Buy a camera so you can do something tomorrow.  You're not going to accomplish anything looking at spec sheets.  
Here's an example shot with the Panasonic GM1:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/694tsb6iwy5y6um/AABQqvadHmjdB8jqJDat5cVTa?dl=0
Is it the best IQ available?  No.  Do the GM1's IQ limitations get in the way of me telling an effective story?  No.  Is it pretty darn good with IQ anyway?  Yes.  DOF quality?  Watch the interview shot I linked to and you tell me.  Besides, most cinematographers prefer f5.6 on s35mm, so I think this FullFrame DOF argument is overplayed, but if you feel like you need it, that's your call.  4K?  Eh, it's nice but not a deal breaker for me.  I can shoot on 1080 and be content.
I'd also point out that M43 can take a speed-booster adapter and work as an effective s35mm cam. 
Anyway, the thing is if you're shooting on a budget you have to make compromises...and I don't think the compromises these days are really that bad.  This cheap stuff does quite well.  My advice is to go get it and actually do some work.

FWIW, I will add this:  imaging tech is going to get so advanced and so cheap that very soon everybody, and I do mean everybody, will have awesome IQ power with them at all times -- via smartphones and enthusiast cameras.  
http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-aims-to-launch-new-8k-cameras-by-2020/
So, ultimately, I don't think you're going to be able to significantly outclass competition with just the camera you buy.
I'd argue that this moment has kind of arrived already, but great IQ will continue to get more and more democratized.  
As this happens, what's going to matter more?  How you work with a client, how you visualize your images, how you collaborate, how you successfully envision a project and deliver it, how you tell a story ... or, what camera you choose to do the job?
Depending on what you do, only you can answer that, but I know what I'm trying to value and nurture. 

​Yup.  For whatever reason, the Japanese strive for the fast frame rate aesthetic. Not sure how they got started down that path --maybe because of the big way consumer technology is tied to their national economy, those legacy developments during the old broadcasting standard (ntsc 60i) days affected the culture?  I do know the "asadora" programming has always been hugely popular and they've been doing those @60fps since the early 1960's.  Almost all of their "prime-time" programming would do the same.
Imagine a mini-series like "Roots" or "Edge of Darkness" grabbing the popular imagination, but instead of it being filmed at 24p on analog film, it was all shot on 60i broadcasting cameras.  The Japanese would do a lot of their stuff electronically.  They're both motion pictures, but obviously look really dissimilar.  
Point is, the Japanese now typically prefer fast frame rates with pristine zoom broadcasting lenses over the cinematic look, and that difference translates into 60fps PR videos that tend to appear way too clinical to western eyes.
So, all that sort of nonsense being said, just consider the context when looking at Sony PR vids.  They're coming at imaging from a different taste.

​Yup.  For whatever reason, the Japanese strive for the fast frame rate aesthetic. Not sure how they got started down that path --maybe because of the big way consumer technology is tied to their national economy, those legacy developments during the old broadcasting standard (ntsc 60i) days affected the culture?  I do know the "asadora" programming has always been hugely popular and they've been doing those @60fps since the early 1960's.  Almost all of their "prime-time" programming would do the same.
Imagine a mini-series like "Roots" or "Edge of Darkness" grabbing the popular imagination, but instead of it being filmed at 24p on analog film, it was all shot on 60i broadcasting cameras.  The Japanese would do a lot of their stuff electronically.  They're both motion pictures, but obviously look really dissimilar.  
Point is, the Japanese now typically prefer fast frame rates with pristine zoom broadcasting lenses over the cinematic look, and that difference translates into 60fps PR videos that tend to appear way too clinical to western eyes.
So, all that sort of nonsense being said, just consider the context when looking at Sony PR vids.  They're coming at imaging from a different taste.

​I think this is an unfortunate assumption.  
One that I see often on online forums.  As you can read in my previous post, I feel it's what you do with the gear rather than the gear itself.  People need to stop fretting about spec sheets and just use the stuff.  I don't think folks are doing themselves any favors when they feel their potential success is tied directly to whatever gear they have.  Yes, it's part of the equation and you need to take the considerations seriously.  It's just not as important, IMHO, as many seemingly tend to believe.
So many other factors (and most not technically related) are so more valuable to a successful production.
I'll qualify this and say that this is from my experience as a corporate video shooter.  Other's reality may be different.

From my perspective on the low-end corporate side of things:
Any camera in the price range you're talking about will do everything you need it to do and it'll look fine.  You're not going to be limited by the technology.  You're really not.  These days my assertion is that it's all about the skill level and creativity you bring to the shoot, not the consumer gear you buy... unless you decide to really go upmarket and invest 10K+ in gear that higher level clients feel more comfortable with.  
--which isn't always a bad thing.  Sometimes clients like seeing a bunch of "real" gear around and they'll pay for that reassurance, even though a shooter does the same exact thing with an expensive camera as they do with an inexpensive one.  I like to rent gear in these upscale circumstances as the cost gets passed onto the client anyway.
All this depends on the clients you're trying to land.  If you're doing weddings or low end stuff, I say ignore the expensive gear altogether.  I do.
As for the NX1, as long as you're willing to go through the transcoding step, (people that typically don't like this step are the ones that gripe about dealing with the new video codec) it really shouldn't be a problem.  I personally don't mind transcoding to prores422 and do it for all my footage anyway regardless of the acquisition codec.
And there's ALWAYS a new and better piece of gear just around the corner.   I mean, I'd even be contrarian and suggest (if you're really trying to keep the budget tight) considering a GX7 ($450 used) or similar if you want great looking 1080 IQ for less.  My advice is to stay one generation behind the "cutting edge" of equipment, buy stuff when it discounts (new or used) and concentrate your efforts on shooting and lighting. 
So, you know, before worrying so much about a such-and-such camera, I always recommend concentrating on lighting first.  The best shooters understand how to paint with light; natural or artificial... and if you know what you're doing in this regard then you can make any camera look good.
I'd say try not to get caught up in the Gear Acquisition Syndrome.  
Now, all that bloviating aside, if I was buying a new camera today and had money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd pick up a A7s simply because it allows some fun creative filming and flexibility with light.  You can do more with less when it comes to lighting, and that's always a good thing. 
Bottom line:  Whatever you get, use it as a creative tool, not a crutch.  Don't worry if it does't do something as well as another piece of gear, just make it do what you want to the best of your ability. 

From my perspective on the low-end corporate side of things:
Any camera in the price range you're talking about will do everything you need it to do and it'll look fine.  You're not going to be limited by the technology.  You're really not.  These days my assertion is that it's all about the skill level and creativity you bring to the shoot, not the consumer gear you buy... unless you decide to really go upmarket and invest 10K+ in gear that higher level clients feel more comfortable with.  
--which isn't always a bad thing.  Sometimes clients like seeing a bunch of "real" gear around and they'll pay for that reassurance, even though a shooter does the same exact thing with an expensive camera as they do with an inexpensive one.  I like to rent gear in these upscale circumstances as the cost gets passed onto the client anyway.
All this depends on the clients you're trying to land.  If you're doing weddings or low end stuff, I say ignore the expensive gear altogether.  I do.
As for the NX1, as long as you're willing to go through the transcoding step, (people that typically don't like this step are the ones that gripe about dealing with the new video codec) it really shouldn't be a problem.  I personally don't mind transcoding to prores422 and do it for all my footage anyway regardless of the acquisition codec.
And there's ALWAYS a new and better piece of gear just around the corner.   I mean, I'd even be contrarian and suggest (if you're really trying to keep the budget tight) considering a GX7 ($450 used) or similar if you want great looking 1080 IQ for less.  My advice is to stay one generation behind the "cutting edge" of equipment, buy stuff when it discounts (new or used) and concentrate your efforts on shooting and lighting. 
So, you know, before worrying so much about a such-and-such camera, I always recommend concentrating on lighting first.  The best shooters understand how to paint with light; natural or artificial... and if you know what you're doing in this regard then you can make any camera look good.
I'd say try not to get caught up in the Gear Acquisition Syndrome.  
Now, all that bloviating aside, if I was buying a new camera today and had money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd pick up a A7s simply because it allows some fun creative filming and flexibility with light.  You can do more with less when it comes to lighting, and that's always a good thing. 
Bottom line:  Whatever you get, use it as a creative tool, not a crutch.  Don't worry if it does't do something as well as another piece of gear, just make it do what you want to the best of your ability. 

FWIW, I will add this:  imaging tech is going to get so advanced and so cheap that very soon everybody, and I do mean everybody, will have awesome IQ power with them at all times -- via smartphones and enthusiast cameras.  
http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-aims-to-launch-new-8k-cameras-by-2020/
So, ultimately, I don't think you're going to be able to significantly outclass competition with just the camera you buy.
I'd argue that this moment has kind of arrived already, but great IQ will continue to get more and more democratized.  
As this happens, what's going to matter more?  How you work with a client, how you visualize your images, how you collaborate, how you successfully envision a project and deliver it, how you tell a story ... or, what camera you choose to do the job?
Depending on what you do, only you can answer that, but I know what I'm trying to value and nurture. 

From my perspective on the low-end corporate side of things:
Any camera in the price range you're talking about will do everything you need it to do and it'll look fine.  You're not going to be limited by the technology.  You're really not.  These days my assertion is that it's all about the skill level and creativity you bring to the shoot, not the consumer gear you buy... unless you decide to really go upmarket and invest 10K+ in gear that higher level clients feel more comfortable with.  
--which isn't always a bad thing.  Sometimes clients like seeing a bunch of "real" gear around and they'll pay for that reassurance, even though a shooter does the same exact thing with an expensive camera as they do with an inexpensive one.  I like to rent gear in these upscale circumstances as the cost gets passed onto the client anyway.
All this depends on the clients you're trying to land.  If you're doing weddings or low end stuff, I say ignore the expensive gear altogether.  I do.
As for the NX1, as long as you're willing to go through the transcoding step, (people that typically don't like this step are the ones that gripe about dealing with the new video codec) it really shouldn't be a problem.  I personally don't mind transcoding to prores422 and do it for all my footage anyway regardless of the acquisition codec.
And there's ALWAYS a new and better piece of gear just around the corner.   I mean, I'd even be contrarian and suggest (if you're really trying to keep the budget tight) considering a GX7 ($450 used) or similar if you want great looking 1080 IQ for less.  My advice is to stay one generation behind the "cutting edge" of equipment, buy stuff when it discounts (new or used) and concentrate your efforts on shooting and lighting. 
So, you know, before worrying so much about a such-and-such camera, I always recommend concentrating on lighting first.  The best shooters understand how to paint with light; natural or artificial... and if you know what you're doing in this regard then you can make any camera look good.
I'd say try not to get caught up in the Gear Acquisition Syndrome.  
Now, all that bloviating aside, if I was buying a new camera today and had money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd pick up a A7s simply because it allows some fun creative filming and flexibility with light.  You can do more with less when it comes to lighting, and that's always a good thing. 
Bottom line:  Whatever you get, use it as a creative tool, not a crutch.  Don't worry if it does't do something as well as another piece of gear, just make it do what you want to the best of your ability. 

Actually, ​I haven't read a single screenwriting book.  I'm just not a fan of voice over.  It's usually done poorly and I also don't like heavy handed exposition.  However, I just watched Shawshank yesterday and I feel that's an exception.

Are you available for parties?