fuzzynormal

Are you available for parties?

Excitement for new technology can certainly manifest into creativity.  I'm pretty sure we've all experienced it.  You can do a lot of fun NEW creative things with light  (if you know how) using something like an A7s.  You wouldn't have that particular opportunity until that camera was released.  But let's also not lose sight of the fact that you can still do a lot of fun creative things with light (if you know how) using something like a GH1. 
I do think buying a new camera will also highly motivate you to shoot stuff if you're a camera geek and enjoy fiddling with knobs, just like getting arbitrary shots, and worry more about the best IQ than story.  If that's you, then great.  The camera/lens manufacturers are going to keep your playpen stocked with great toys.  Pull out your camera charts while you're at it.
The reality is, and we all know it, some people clamor for the latest and greatest, acquire it, and then don't really do a heck of a lot with it... random motion picture city shots backed by a music cut from some indy band is fine and dandy if that gets you going.  Congratulations.  You'll be able to do that all over again when the next new camera goes on sale. And again.  And again.
Just talking for myself --I'm kind of over the technology arms race.  I'm concentrating on making stuff for clients/myself and using whatever tools I have access to within my budget to solve my problems; real or imagined.  I'm grateful that clean flexible imaging tools are cheap and easy to get and use.  I don't want for great IQ anymore.  It has arrived.  I do want for a deeper skill set at impactful cinema, and the ability to nurture my creativity in other regards --not necessarily associated with cameras.
But, if you have a job where you're tasked with comparing and reviewing the more and more subtle nuances that exist between new cameras, then by all means, do that.  Nothing wrong with it.  Do it.  Make it work for you.
There you go.  Thoughts from a somewhat hypocritical corporate video guy served with more than a few grains of salt.  Got my daily procrastination all taken care of.  Now, back to work... Once I check out M43rumors....

I'm a guy that doesn't have any qualms shooting images with a crop more than s35, so the G7 looks like it'll be a great cheap cam to get regardless if I ever put a speedbooster on it.  Good to hear about some of the details with the adapter, however.  Always nice to know what the options are.
 
 

It's all good enough for me at this point.  
I came up in the days where if you didn't have pro gear it really showed.  You had to buy-in to get great IQ.  That was high 5 (into 6) figures, easy, now it's in the low 4's.  The fact that's there's two less zeros between these cams with pretty much indistinguishable IQ to all but the most discriminating viewer...well, I'm cool with that.
You whippersnappers and your expectations!  Why, when I was young I had to film uphill in the snow!  Both ways.

Maybe your guy's problem is that you don't know what's available over in the broadcasting realm of motion pictures... ;-)
 
Now. 
Now, that's sufficiently bad-ass, right?  Obviously, that's as goofy as hell, but don't tell me you couldn't use such lens effects for at least one cool shot in a narrative movie.

It's all good enough for me at this point.  
I came up in the days where if you didn't have pro gear it really showed.  You had to buy-in to get great IQ.  That was high 5 (into 6) figures, easy, now it's in the low 4's.  The fact that's there's two less zeros between these cams with pretty much indistinguishable IQ to all but the most discriminating viewer...well, I'm cool with that.
You whippersnappers and your expectations!  Why, when I was young I had to film uphill in the snow!  Both ways.

Well, doing "this" certain look or doing "that" certain look is nice and all (and you should strive for a cohesive aesthetic--even if it's just doing the whole thing on a cheap 50mm lens) but you should really save more particular image considerations for the bottom of the want-to-do list.  
Ultimately, nothing is going to make your film more viable and successful than a good bit of considered pre-production planning.  And most of that stuff has nothing to do with lenses or cameras.
Also, it's free.  
Arguably, you could shoot the whole thing on an old VHS camcorder and if the story was solid, people will watch it.  Heck, I'd argue that the IQ low-fi quality of such would be a helluvalot more compelling than contemporary electronic imaging.  
Obviously, good IQ is great for a film, but certainly over-emphasized here.  An old NEX and a kit lens is more than good enough in capable hands...IMHO.  Especially for a western where the limitations of a "softer" camera fit the rustic quality of the setting.  Would great dynamic range be nice to have?  Yes.  Is it a necessity?  Well, I guess that's for you to decide.
Again, the most solid advice I can offer since you're on a time constraint, is definitely do the storyboard.  If you're real ambitious, slide-show your story board and then do a real time edit with a dialog comp/music track.  This can be fun if you have willing and eager players involved to do their voices (it's even a sort of rehearsal) and it'll also illustrate any camera-shot holes you might have...before you're on set.
Recently I made an experimental short film wherein I attempted to film actors on-locations in a documentary style.  While successful on certain levels, ultimately it didn't hold together as too many shots where absent, the production went way too long, and the talent floundered too much.  A director with more tenacity and skill probably could have tied things together better and artistically, but I definitely ended up stretched beyond my capabilities.  So, knowing what to do going in is the best bet.  At least it was from my experience.
If nothing else, all that pre-pro that helps you stay on task.  Ironically, it seems like you have the initial insight and (most important) helpful crew, that'll allow you to be more accomplished at this --more so than some aspiring "pros" like myself would be.
Obviously, come back here and post your results when you're finished.  I would love to see it.  I wrote a Western script last year that made it deep into pre-production before the investor pulled out...and I have a soft spot for that genre...hope it goes well for ya!

Maybe your guy's problem is that you don't know what's available over in the broadcasting realm of motion pictures... ;-)
 
Now. 
Now, that's sufficiently bad-ass, right?  Obviously, that's as goofy as hell, but don't tell me you couldn't use such lens effects for at least one cool shot in a narrative movie.

We can't think about everything.  Americans got enough on our plate (that's literal, not metaphorical). 
For instance, our Olympians are changing their gender 40 years after they were in the spotlight, so you shouldn't expect us to concentrate on lesser issues.

​I'm on a selection committee for a film fest.  Honestly, we see a lot more creativity from people working with a lot less.  Point is, this film is lame.  I'll agree with ya.  
Anyway, a good aspiring film maker will recognize that it's not the camera failing here.  Of course, many aspiring film makers don't always know what the hell they're doing, so they could be swayed negatively with lousy films.
I mean, "Reverie" wasn't exactly great narrative, but at least it used light in a good interesting way.  Yvonne's cinematography is sterile and ... well, just bad.  Samsung should've pulled the plug on this film and left it alone.  --And putting it on YouTube with an open comment section?  Whooo-weee....good luck with that.

You guys just don't get it... This film is a disturbing social commentary on the American family and the human condition...
The mom "entering the fridge" is really symbolic for her addiction to crystal meth (ice). Notice how the family has to function more and more without her as her addiction gets worse? I didn't watch the ending (who could make it that far), but I like to think something really shocking (like GoT shocking) happened at the end, like maybe her pimp and drug dealer ends up executing her family one by one.  

​Anyone in marketing that would think this is a good idea probably shouldn't be in marketing, but that's corporate culture for you.
If it were me, I'd be hiring Kendry (for the same budget they spent on this mistake) and just let him do his thing.  Whatever he came back with at the end of a month would get people excited.  Not only what he did but how he shot it.
Heck, spend a day on Vimeo and you could track down hundreds of talented filmmakers.
This particular movie strikes me as the perfect example of a talent challenged film maker* devoted to the tech and the idea of making a movie --while not having enough well rounded artistic talent.  The film is amusing to me in the sense that It does illustrate how the fundamentals of making a good film has pretty much jack-squat to do with the camera.
*full disclosure: I consider myself as such so I recognize the limitations.

Good idea, but...yeah...unfortunately not so great for talking head interviews is it?  Can't hide the thing.  If that does't matter to you, then no problem.  Make a version with an input for a high-quality lav mic and I'd certainly be more curious.

​Anyone in marketing that would think this is a good idea probably shouldn't be in marketing, but that's corporate culture for you.
If it were me, I'd be hiring Kendry (for the same budget they spent on this mistake) and just let him do his thing.  Whatever he came back with at the end of a month would get people excited.  Not only what he did but how he shot it.
Heck, spend a day on Vimeo and you could track down hundreds of talented filmmakers.
This particular movie strikes me as the perfect example of a talent challenged film maker* devoted to the tech and the idea of making a movie --while not having enough well rounded artistic talent.  The film is amusing to me in the sense that It does illustrate how the fundamentals of making a good film has pretty much jack-squat to do with the camera.
*full disclosure: I consider myself as such so I recognize the limitations.

​Yeah, that's pretty much what she had to say about it.  
And I also find it fascinating that even as the ability to afford one's "brush" gets cheaper and cheaper, it's always going to be a relevant part of the process.  It's an art form that's more demanding of the craftwork than other mediums, I think.  The simple nature of it being (mostly) collaborative produces an energy and momentum not seen in many other types of solitary art.
--One of the reasons I find the collaborative are of dance and live music so captivating as well.

It would be so much easier to be a painter or a writer. You don't have to have equipment. You don't have to do all the things. You're not at the mercy of gear. You're not here and you're not there. It's a terrible pain to be a filmmaker, because you not only have the creative problems, but you have financial problems that they don't have. You have technical problems that they don't have. You have machines that are breaking down in a way that paintbrushes don't break down. It's just a terrible thing to be a filmmaker. And if you are a filmmaker, it's because there is something in the sheer medium that seems to be able to make some sort of statement that you particularly want to make, and which no other medium to you seems capable of making in the same way.
Not my words, but I do like them.  As much as I go on about it's only about what you do with the equipment, not what equipment you have, filmmakers are tethered to the technology.  It's the blessing/curse.
If you're curious about from where and whom the above sentiment comes from:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH8FvTjESvU 

Panasonic LUMIX G 42.5mm f/1.7 Aspherical Power O.I.S. Lens Micro Four Thirds
I'm a M43 shooter most of time.
For me, a 40mm-ish lens offers an ideal focal length for cinematic imaging.  I find I like doing a lot of my shots at this focal length on M43.  Often it's all I go out into the field with for certain gigs.  I do this to keep my sessions aesthetically cohesive.  I have an Oly 45mm 1.8.
I might carry along my Pany 20mm for some wider stuff, but I'm just not as enamored with it as I am the 45.  The documentary I'm currently working on is about 75% shot on my 45mm, and almost all those shots are making it into the edit.
Zooms I don't really like.  I use them for corporate work, never really for my own shooting.  I like to recommend people shoot with only one lens for stuff.  It's really great limiting your focal length options; forces you to think in a certain visual vocabulary.  The last short I did was all with a 25mm 2.8.
Primes are the best!

Well, here's her sentiment directly for reference:
 
 

It would be so much easier to be a painter or a writer. You don't have to have equipment. You don't have to do all the things. You're not at the mercy of gear. You're not here and you're not there. It's a terrible pain to be a filmmaker, because you not only have the creative problems, but you have financial problems that they don't have. You have technical problems that they don't have. You have machines that are breaking down in a way that paintbrushes don't break down. It's just a terrible thing to be a filmmaker. And if you are a filmmaker, it's because there is something in the sheer medium that seems to be able to make some sort of statement that you particularly want to make, and which no other medium to you seems capable of making in the same way.
Not my words, but I do like them.  As much as I go on about it's only about what you do with the equipment, not what equipment you have, filmmakers are tethered to the technology.  It's the blessing/curse.
If you're curious about from where and whom the above sentiment comes from:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH8FvTjESvU 

It would be so much easier to be a painter or a writer. You don't have to have equipment. You don't have to do all the things. You're not at the mercy of gear. You're not here and you're not there. It's a terrible pain to be a filmmaker, because you not only have the creative problems, but you have financial problems that they don't have. You have technical problems that they don't have. You have machines that are breaking down in a way that paintbrushes don't break down. It's just a terrible thing to be a filmmaker. And if you are a filmmaker, it's because there is something in the sheer medium that seems to be able to make some sort of statement that you particularly want to make, and which no other medium to you seems capable of making in the same way.
Not my words, but I do like them.  As much as I go on about it's only about what you do with the equipment, not what equipment you have, filmmakers are tethered to the technology.  It's the blessing/curse.
If you're curious about from where and whom the above sentiment comes from:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH8FvTjESvU 

It would be so much easier to be a painter or a writer. You don't have to have equipment. You don't have to do all the things. You're not at the mercy of gear. You're not here and you're not there. It's a terrible pain to be a filmmaker, because you not only have the creative problems, but you have financial problems that they don't have. You have technical problems that they don't have. You have machines that are breaking down in a way that paintbrushes don't break down. It's just a terrible thing to be a filmmaker. And if you are a filmmaker, it's because there is something in the sheer medium that seems to be able to make some sort of statement that you particularly want to make, and which no other medium to you seems capable of making in the same way.
Not my words, but I do like them.  As much as I go on about it's only about what you do with the equipment, not what equipment you have, filmmakers are tethered to the technology.  It's the blessing/curse.
If you're curious about from where and whom the above sentiment comes from:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH8FvTjESvU 

I kind of feel it's a put up or shut up kind of thing. It's way too easy to be a critic of something deliberately stupid. 
I get it if you don't like it. It doesn't work for me on some levels, but if you claim to be an Indy filmmaker and rip this a part, then seeing the accomplishments of the one doing the ripping seems like a fair request. 
I mean, it's a labor of love sort of thing, so it deserves a bit of leeway, right?

I kind of feel it's a put up or shut up kind of thing. It's way too easy to be a critic of something deliberately stupid. 
I get it if you don't like it. It doesn't work for me on some levels, but if you claim to be an Indy filmmaker and rip this a part, then seeing the accomplishments of the one doing the ripping seems like a fair request. 
I mean, it's a labor of love sort of thing, so it deserves a bit of leeway, right?

​I've shot a short film with the 110 25mm on a GM1.  Even though I don't use that camera except for only certain tasks, I do love it.  Great documentary stealth cam.  Such an awesome set up with the a110 lenses, As you can tell from my avatar.
I like the character of the glass and the f2.8 is, I think, ideal for cinema.  Matched with the Panasonic IQ?  It's pretty nice.
It's truly amazing what you can/could make with that set-up --and you can acquire it via used gear for around $350.

​I've shot a short film with the 110 25mm on a GM1.  Even though I don't use that camera except for only certain tasks, I do love it.  Great documentary stealth cam.  Such an awesome set up with the a110 lenses, As you can tell from my avatar.
I like the character of the glass and the f2.8 is, I think, ideal for cinema.  Matched with the Panasonic IQ?  It's pretty nice.
It's truly amazing what you can/could make with that set-up --and you can acquire it via used gear for around $350.