fuzzynormal

Unfortunately, this is not the site for that.  This is pretty much a gear-centric place.  I think that people of my ilk congregate here because we're involved in production, but since we're all on a lower level of budget and skill it's a heck of a lot easier to talk about specs than ideas.  I can testify that in my own case I have more gear than I have ideas.   
BTW, does anyone know of a website where talking about ideas and collaborations happens?  When you consider it, does does that sort of online interaction even seem viable?

To be fair, some art strives to offend.  And why should't it if that's the intent?
On the other hand, some people make things from a perspective where a lot of ideological ignorance is presented --where the creator doesn't have the insight or self awareness to comprehend other opinions.
In one case let's say you have an artist that understands the various nuances yet strives to say something from her/his POV in a focused way.  In another you have someone that does not comprehend the other's views yet presents his/her POV with that empathetic blind spot.
So as a person that has to reckon with those two pieces of work, which one deserves the be held in more value?  If either?  That sort of thing is in a way intangible and it all depends on the art and the artist, but personally I'd hold in higher esteem someone with the intelligence to understand what they're creating and appreciating the context of it.
So if you make an expletive movie because you're just not smart or wise enough to NOT make an exploitive movie, I think I'd approach that material with a healthy dose of skepticism.  That doesn't mean I'm getting my panties bunched because I'm offended by a certain ideology.  It means I think something is shit because there's not much intelligence on display.
Art is meant to be poked and prodded from all directions.  If it can't withstand that scrutiny then maybe it deserves to be ridiculed.  Some things are good, some aren't.

Once I got my hands on the FS700 you better believe I abused the slow-mo.  Had fun doing it too.

​Yes, by all means, stop playing with toys.  At least buy gear that makes you appear like a professional behind the lens and next to the cool camera stuff because that's what the viewer will truly appreciate when they watch the final product. [rolls eyes]
Never mind these option that give you professional level imaging for a few hundred bucks, just use gear that has brand prestige among industry people.  Such as a RED.  It's so great.  And your favorite gritty movie was once shot with it.   
If you do otherwise, you're not going to be prestigious or taken seriously by other guys that appear professional next to cool camera stuff.  
Well, unless you actually capture a compelling story and create an emotional and memorable film...which depending on your circumstances, using a toy camera might give you the best chance of acquiring, but, hey, whatever.  As long as you look good in your PR shot when you're pointing and standing next to a big camera with a huge matte box.
And you'll never make money!  
As a documentarian that's probably going to be true no matter what gear you use.
Anyway, the "you-must-use-this" snob attitude (and it is a legitimate snob attitude) about specific brands is ridiculous.  Sure, some people in the "biz" embrace it, and maybe it even helps them in their certain industry circles, but it doesn't mean it's an attitude we all need to share or assume that outlook works for one's particular needs.  If you have the skill and the story, you can shoot the damn thing on a smartphone.  As a documentary film maker, if you start with thinking about the story you'll always be better off than starting by thinking about the gear.
My opinion is that too many people get that backwards.

​Yes, by all means, stop playing with toys.  At least buy gear that makes you appear like a professional behind the lens and next to the cool camera stuff because that's what the viewer will truly appreciate when they watch the final product. [rolls eyes]
Never mind these option that give you professional level imaging for a few hundred bucks, just use gear that has brand prestige among industry people.  Such as a RED.  It's so great.  And your favorite gritty movie was once shot with it.   
If you do otherwise, you're not going to be prestigious or taken seriously by other guys that appear professional next to cool camera stuff.  
Well, unless you actually capture a compelling story and create an emotional and memorable film...which depending on your circumstances, using a toy camera might give you the best chance of acquiring, but, hey, whatever.  As long as you look good in your PR shot when you're pointing and standing next to a big camera with a huge matte box.
And you'll never make money!  
As a documentarian that's probably going to be true no matter what gear you use.
Anyway, the "you-must-use-this" snob attitude (and it is a legitimate snob attitude) about specific brands is ridiculous.  Sure, some people in the "biz" embrace it, and maybe it even helps them in their certain industry circles, but it doesn't mean it's an attitude we all need to share or assume that outlook works for one's particular needs.  If you have the skill and the story, you can shoot the damn thing on a smartphone.  As a documentary film maker, if you start with thinking about the story you'll always be better off than starting by thinking about the gear.
My opinion is that too many people get that backwards.

​Yes, by all means, stop playing with toys.  At least buy gear that makes you appear like a professional behind the lens and next to the cool camera stuff because that's what the viewer will truly appreciate when they watch the final product. [rolls eyes]
Never mind these option that give you professional level imaging for a few hundred bucks, just use gear that has brand prestige among industry people.  Such as a RED.  It's so great.  And your favorite gritty movie was once shot with it.   
If you do otherwise, you're not going to be prestigious or taken seriously by other guys that appear professional next to cool camera stuff.  
Well, unless you actually capture a compelling story and create an emotional and memorable film...which depending on your circumstances, using a toy camera might give you the best chance of acquiring, but, hey, whatever.  As long as you look good in your PR shot when you're pointing and standing next to a big camera with a huge matte box.
And you'll never make money!  
As a documentarian that's probably going to be true no matter what gear you use.
Anyway, the "you-must-use-this" snob attitude (and it is a legitimate snob attitude) about specific brands is ridiculous.  Sure, some people in the "biz" embrace it, and maybe it even helps them in their certain industry circles, but it doesn't mean it's an attitude we all need to share or assume that outlook works for one's particular needs.  If you have the skill and the story, you can shoot the damn thing on a smartphone.  As a documentary film maker, if you start with thinking about the story you'll always be better off than starting by thinking about the gear.
My opinion is that too many people get that backwards.

I just shot a doc with a GM1 and a Gx7.  Outboard audio isn't the greatest process, but aside from that the imaging looks great.  I got better results from those Panasonic cams than I would have acquired from my 5DII...except for interviews.  That FF interview look with a wide open 50 or 85mm is pretty sweet.

​I own the camera and disagree with that.  It's decent enough and I can use it effectively to get easy shots because of the 5-axis, but cameras that sell for $500 from Panasonic and Sony are better than the video IQ from the Oly right now.  And that's a whole 'other price class...lower.
My EM5II is a great cam in my modest collection.  It's there for certain work and performs great at it, but it's not the best tool if IQ is your premium.

​I agree and I can't really fathom why some are saying the E-M5ii is a disaster (and some with such passion).  I mean 1 year ago when the E-M1 was released, it received comments like:
"Whether you’re a professional commercial shooter, single operator film artist or an enthusiastic amateur, the E-M1 is worth considering purely because of that stabiliser, small form factor and lovely EVF."
"As for more casual users, you can do point and shoot video with the E-M1 better than most of the competition as well – again due to the stabilisation system."
"The main reason this camera is so useful for video is that it’s the only interchangeable lens camera I’d consider for handheld shooting with zero rigging, completely bare-bones as if shooting stills."
"The big surprise is just how similar video quality is on the E-M1 and GH3. They both resolve very good levels of detail (as long as you don’t turn digital sharpening off in camera and forget to apply it in post)"
And this was on a camera that is 30p only, with 24MBit codec, no live audio-levels, and no ability to change settings when recording at all.  Now I understand that times have changed and we now have the GH4, A7s and NX1 to consider but none of these have anything close to the stabilisation of the E-M1/E-M5ii, which is the reason to choose Olympus.  Now I am disappointed that image quality isn't better, as it really should be for 2015, but Olympus has improved numerous other aspects and hopefully will roll out some further updates to improve the quirks now that video is actually a feature they are promoting.    Anyway, there is no right or wrong and no camera is perfect, so we must each decide what features are a priority to you and your shooting style.  I understand and respect those who choose maximal image quality but also understand and respect those who are prepared to accept 'good enough' IQ for the freedom of in-body stabilisation..
 

​I can testify to this.  
It's very true and not only disappointing, but probably unnecessary if the Oly engineers had a bit more experience with video.  After all, Sony cleaned it up it's video with the A6000.  Will Oly eventually learn to do the same in future models?  Let's hope. 
If one's goal (in owning a stills camera that shoots video) is to have the best IQ possible, the EM5II shouldn't be a consideration.  Nope.  If you need a tool that offers a unique creative feature such as 5-axis, then think about it. Simple. Simple. Simple.  Why that reality should bother people in any semi-serious way is just odd. 
Wedding videographers shooting close ups and medium shots of faces with shallow DOF?  You really need to have a go with this camera; might be a godsend for your work.
If, on the other hand, you want the bestest IQ from a consumer camera for creative/technical purposes (or, as seems to be the case often, bragging rights) then grab a different product.  I personally don't see the need to have so much trepidation about something you're not even going to own.
The fact that the sentiments above can be repeated ad nauseam and some will still continue to rail becomes a study in phycological behavior rather than an exchange about cameras.  
But, it's the internet.  I understand.  I pretty sure god invented it to distract us all from the impending apocalypse.  He's magnanimous in that way.
Heck, I'm culpable in this silliness.  I'm here posting like mad because I'm blowing off steam while dealing with a difficult client --and this alleviates some of that stress.  That's my excuse anyway.

​I'm not the most talented shooter, but all you have to do with this camera is accept the limitations and exploit the advantages.  You'll get good shots.  Maybe that's why I kind of like ...some...most (?)... of what I'm getting from the Oly.  It's "quieting" my lens while handheld and making simple quick shots look rather elegant.
Moreover, if one is a decent visual storyteller a lot of this clutching-of-IQ-pearls is not that important.
I know some of us might require a velvet tufted chaise to fall into when we witness the EM5II's moiré, but others will roll with it and make it work.
Obviously, here on the internet, it's all great procrastination fodder.  For me especially...I think this is my 20th post on the topic.  Anyway, I have some pragmatic "real world" footage from yesterday.  When I get it edited, I'll put up a link; w/the raw ungraded shots.

​Yeah, the "slow crawl."  Still, it would be a worthwhile test just to get a handle on the actual limitations; knowing how far I could acceptably be able to push my luck, or not, as it were.

Yeah, that dusk shot of San Fran is pretty much what scares people about this camera.  Oh well. 

​I'm not the most talented shooter, but all you have to do with this camera is accept the limitations and exploit the advantages.  You'll get good shots.  Maybe that's why I kind of like ...some...most (?)... of what I'm getting from the Oly.  It's "quieting" my lens while handheld and making simple quick shots look rather elegant.
Moreover, if one is a decent visual storyteller a lot of this clutching-of-IQ-pearls is not that important.
I know some of us might require a velvet tufted chaise to fall into when we witness the EM5II's moiré, but others will roll with it and make it work.
Obviously, here on the internet, it's all great procrastination fodder.  For me especially...I think this is my 20th post on the topic.  Anyway, I have some pragmatic "real world" footage from yesterday.  When I get it edited, I'll put up a link; w/the raw ungraded shots.

Yeah, that dusk shot of San Fran is pretty much what scares people about this camera.  Oh well. 

At the end of the day, the video IQ from the EM5II is inferior to similar cameras from companies like Sony and Panasonic.  The thing is, it's not a disaster.  It's got moiré, that's kind of the worst thing to say about it.
And if you want to minimize moire and roll off those higher frequencies in your image, there are very simple ways to do it.  Just read what that Brawley guy advises.  Easy.
Do I think the EM5II should have better IQ in 2015?  Yes.  Is it going to stop me from being productive with it?  No.  I'll do just fine and so will thousands of other owners.
The Canon T3i has moire too.  Didn't stop this guy:  http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8116-short-film-shot-on-canon-t3i/
Ah, perhaps I'm pissing in the wind here.  Arguing about IQ seems to be many a camera hobbyist's dedicated pastime.  Actually using the camera in creative ways?  Maybe not so much.

At the end of the day, the video IQ from the EM5II is inferior to similar cameras from companies like Sony and Panasonic.  The thing is, it's not a disaster.  It's got moiré, that's kind of the worst thing to say about it.
And if you want to minimize moire and roll off those higher frequencies in your image, there are very simple ways to do it.  Just read what that Brawley guy advises.  Easy.
Do I think the EM5II should have better IQ in 2015?  Yes.  Is it going to stop me from being productive with it?  No.  I'll do just fine and so will thousands of other owners.
The Canon T3i has moire too.  Didn't stop this guy:  http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8116-short-film-shot-on-canon-t3i/
Ah, perhaps I'm pissing in the wind here.  Arguing about IQ seems to be many a camera hobbyist's dedicated pastime.  Actually using the camera in creative ways?  Maybe not so much.

​Ok Inquisitive, it time to fess up.  We know that you are the head of the global Olympus video fan boy club -the Olympinati, who is engaged in a global conspiracy to secretly convince the film making world that Olympus is the king of video with the same if not better resolution than the GH2/3/4 but with much superior stabilisation that they just can't live without.  If you succeed, Panasonic and other companies will have no choice but to put IBIS into all their cameras and in the process they will throw away their highly detailed, moire-free images and will plunge the world into the next video dark age.......

​No, on the contrary.  I got no problem.  The IQ of some cameras is far more advanced than others.  I don't see this particular Oly debate happening here on EOSHD though.  The consensus is pretty much,  "Yeah, Oly's still not there yet.  Too bad; wish they were."  
Which is kind of why I'm curious as to your earnestness.  I'm not faulting you for your perceptions, nor would I discourage them.  If you want to "rant," as you said you felt like you had to do, go for it.  Don't let my comments dissuade.  (after all, I do agree with everything you say regarding IQ) 
But, I am kind of surprised that you would want be so ardent about it here --as I think we're all kind of well aware of camera IQ and are more or less impartial about it.  Ultimately, IQ does tend to be the dominant topic around these parts, for better or worse.
If you're searching out some sort of debate as online recreation I think you'll probably get it here, but the rhetorical slant regarding cameras will come from a more specific perspective so try to keep that in mind.

Cmon to the United States. Freemarket and lots of offensive tv here. 

Well, I make a living doing video production.  I'm not the most accomplished, but I get by.
You're verbose about your opinion, but I can't quite comprehend the level of angst you have about a camera you never plan to purchase. The perceived threat that a particular stabization feature will interfere with sensor development?  Well, okay, I do hear you saying that...but I don't quite get it.  Feel free to rant though if it helps. 

I'd say that if someone wants online interaction to be part of their creative process, it really does't make any sense for someone else to chastise that artistic decision or be snarky about it.  But, of course, this is the internet.  
I'm not sure, but I believe the 21st century inter webs is energized by the snarky fusion of a thousand suns.  Or maybe the hormonal angst of 15 year old boys --which is much more powerful, I think. 

​I'm not going to deny this assertion at all.  It's true!   But, I will counter that having aggressive sharpness isn't always desirable.  At least for me.  Then again, I'm a guy that often shoots vintage lenses to purposefully degrade the IQ of my Gx7.  Depends on what one is going for I guess.
That said, I do need to run around with my Oly 12-40 2.8, run some tests with that glass, and see what shakes out.  I think I'll try the natural setting at default.