fuzzynormal

​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.

Well, look, I bought one simply because the 5-axis.  It will make some specific work I do a bit more practical and faster.  That's the bottom line for me, but I think I'm a specific case.  Regardless, there is a reason the IBIS is coveted.   Even so, I don't see how it would really move the needle of the entire marketplace to preferring 5-axis over great IQ.  Moreover, it's probably not something worth worrying about.  People that are blindly brand loyal are a weird lot not to be trusted anyway.  My 2cents.
Obviously, we'd all like great video with 5axis, but I'm guessing for right now we can rely on Panasonic and Sony to deliver IQ before stabilization...and that's even assuming that 5-axis directly affects IQ, which may or may not be the engineering reality.
I'll probably buy a Gh4 later this year; heck, right now it's only $100 more than a EM5II...

I'm thinking an Oly E-M5 II and my $35 Merlin-knock-off will work good (enough) for me. Will test this out next week.
Figure if I'm going to spend $1.5K for stabilization, maybe having a camera that does 80% of the work might be a better bet.
I was able to produce simple and short handheld dolly shots with the old M5 just by doing a little tai-chi body control, so I'm encouraged that the new and improved Oly 5-axis will offer capability to elegantly handle more assertive movements.
I like the idea of being able to grab steady cam level shots with small and very portable rigging...or no rigging at all.

​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.

​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:
 

​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:
 

noa,
​There are a few major issues with Robin Wong's test. First and foremost is that when he's taking the video of the camera with the E-M5 II and the E-M1, there are different focal points for both videos. With the E-M5 II, more of the camera is in focus than with the E-M1. More specifically, the back of the camera on the video taken with the E-M1 is substantially more out of focus than on the E-M5 II shot, making the whole image appear less sharp. There may be some small parts of the E-M1 shot that are in perfect focus, but generally, when you're doing a sharpness and fine detail comparison, you don't want so much of your shot to be out of focus. And, if you're comparing two cameras and you want to shoot this way, you have to be meticulous to a fault and make sure the focus is identical between the two.
That's why you should generally be shooting further away (possibly at infinity focus).
Another thing that you want to do is make sure that the subject you're shooting has sufficient fine detail to properly differentiate between two cameras. I don't believe he achieved that either.
Regardless, I agree with Mr. Reid that the quality this camera produces is unacceptable by 2015 standards. And, to me, this would be true even if it were exactly on par with the E-M1. Olympus has played up the video quality so heavily, handed out free samples to numerous film makers so they could create their master works (and give them advertising in the process), and made numerous (superficial) spec upgrades to their cameras, all implying that this camera was a serious video tool. When you do that and you get peoples' hopes up that this is going to be competitive with Panasonic, you had better deliver the goods IMO. So, I don't think his response was unexpected. It was the exact same response I had, and I didn't even have reason to believe that it was worse than the E-M1 (or that the crop was increased), since I don't own any OM-D.
And, another thing, having 77MBps and all-I (and time code), etc. is all code for many of us that a certain kind of video quality is going to be delivered. There has simply never been a camera with this type of bitrate, all-I, and this much hype that has had such poor video quality. Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, etc. would never release a camera with this bitrate, with this type of low compression, and this much hype, and not deliver the goods. It's a complete blunder on their part IMO.
Finally, I believe Andrew has stated that he couldn't eliminate  the crop when turning off the stabilizer (and that the crop was substantially greater than the prior model). And, anyway, turning off the stabilizer would completely negate the major benefit of this camera (possibly the only benefit). I'm pretty sure in past Olympus cameras, turning off the stabilizer eliminated the crop. For reference, I believe this camera has two stabilization modes. Mode 1 is IBIS + digital, which needs to have a crop. Mode 2 is IBIS only (I believe), which doesn't need a crop. I don't know if it's cropped anyway because I haven't tried the camera. And then, obviously, you can turn off all stabilization, which also doesn't need a crop.
I would imagine that if the crop is on all the time, even without digital stabilization, this could probably be remedied by a firmware upgrade.

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)

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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

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.  

​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.  

I'm thinking an Oly E-M5 II and my $35 Merlin-knock-off will work good (enough) for me. Will test this out next week.
Figure if I'm going to spend $1.5K for stabilization, maybe having a camera that does 80% of the work might be a better bet.
I was able to produce simple and short handheld dolly shots with the old M5 just by doing a little tai-chi body control, so I'm encouraged that the new and improved Oly 5-axis will offer capability to elegantly handle more assertive movements.
I like the idea of being able to grab steady cam level shots with small and very portable rigging...or no rigging at all.

So many reasons.  The ones we might be unaware of though are the most powerful.  ​I tend to believe that this "smartphone-as-proxy-for-witnessing-life-behavior" is a kind of a psychological issue, a subliminal problem.  For example, so many of us have a difficult time accepting their temporal existence.  Capturing moments controls time; proves to oneself that they can govern the journey somewhat.  knowhatimean?
Life's nothing without death.  Ying-Yang.  And whatcha' gonna do about it?  Answer:  Instagram.  
Myself, when I'm actually not working I tend to leave my camera at home.  I prefer flawed recollection.
That said, the GM1 is one of the best stealth cams I've ever used.  Nobody seriously thinks anything worthwhile is happening with that bit of gear.

Excellent point.
​This is why there will always be noise on the internet with many people and their gear.  
Those that have "something to say" actually go out, spend their time doing it, and don't really worry too much about online forums.
However, those of us, like me, that get by doing decent but somewhat unimaginative work (I'm a corporate video guy) like to chat about their stuff because we're invested into it as a way to inflate our capabilities.  For example: If I win the lottery then go out and purchase an Alexa... Well, I can then be superior to my peers because I've suddenly acquired a bit of kit that allows me to be 1 or 2 steps of dynamic range better than you!  Haha!  I'm better!  I have the best thing!  Hooray!  Of course, that viewpoint is mostly nonsense.  But, I do have a device that potentially increases my ability.  Will I, with my limited abilities, exploit that in an effective way?  I'd like to think so, but I would not.  Not really.
But, man, I'd be emotionally invested into that potential.  It would affect my perception of my capability --of my value to my profession.  And that value defines my self-worth as a person.
It's not just cameras, it's kind of anything materialistic, really.  
The thing that comes to my mind is car enthusiasts that build hot rods with all the materials they can afford, but couldn't drive around a race track to save their lives.

Excellent point.
​This is why there will always be noise on the internet with many people and their gear.  
Those that have "something to say" actually go out, spend their time doing it, and don't really worry too much about online forums.
However, those of us, like me, that get by doing decent but somewhat unimaginative work (I'm a corporate video guy) like to chat about their stuff because we're invested into it as a way to inflate our capabilities.  For example: If I win the lottery then go out and purchase an Alexa... Well, I can then be superior to my peers because I've suddenly acquired a bit of kit that allows me to be 1 or 2 steps of dynamic range better than you!  Haha!  I'm better!  I have the best thing!  Hooray!  Of course, that viewpoint is mostly nonsense.  But, I do have a device that potentially increases my ability.  Will I, with my limited abilities, exploit that in an effective way?  I'd like to think so, but I would not.  Not really.
But, man, I'd be emotionally invested into that potential.  It would affect my perception of my capability --of my value to my profession.  And that value defines my self-worth as a person.
It's not just cameras, it's kind of anything materialistic, really.  
The thing that comes to my mind is car enthusiasts that build hot rods with all the materials they can afford, but couldn't drive around a race track to save their lives.