fuzzynormal

Wonderful insight. Thanks!

Don't we all ;-)

You tried to use a H1 as a mic to record audio while it was on the camera?  For example, you filmed someone talking from 10 feet across the room and the H1 mic was on the GX85?
FWIW, it almost always worthless to record audio from the camera.  It's almost irrelevant how high-fidelity and professional a microphone would be.  If a mic is not placed in the right spot, pointed the right direction, it'll just sound lousy.

Great.  Now I can record the feature lecturer at the insurance adjusters conference next month without having to miss a single moment by pausing the recording and then restarting.
Seriously though...is non-stop recording (a feature that many people seem to go on about) not at all a big deal?  Legitimate question: does anyone here really need to record this long?  I'm actually curious.

When I'm following one person, I put a ew100 wireless lav mic on them and forget it.  In my shoulder bag I carry around the receiver/Zoom recorder.  And I monitor the audio with headphones as it records.
If it's a bigger group, then an audio op with a boom pole and shot gun is required.
Shotgun on the camera?  No.  Not a fan of that.
You're right that one can't get the best audio recording to the cheesy preamps of these hybrid cameras.  But, for b-roll, I've found that the audio is quite adequate when using my EW100's, and it certainly is a lot easier to handle as a one-man-band.

Sure 'nuff.  Based on how I shoot, and the fact I'll be using the same glass as always, I expect footage will feel and "look" exactly like what I get out of my 5-axis EM5II --with just a heck of a lot better resolution! 
However, from all accounts the color is better than the GX7 and now, of course, there's the 4K.  So, you know, sharper images all around, but I'm thinking my experience with the camera will be what I'm used to with the GX7.  Breezy.  Effective.  A little bland to use, but not difficult.
As it happens, I grown incredibly fond of the ergonomics of the EM5II.  Man, I like shooting with that camera.  Nice EVF, wonderful battery grip, direct audio input and monitoring!!! (I mean, that's really one of it's great underappreciated features.  So damn practical. I love being able to record subjects with a wireless mic straight to the card and monitor it while it's happening.  So nice for documentary film making.)  
*Sigh* I'll miss THAT for sure.  While I'm shooting AND in post.  Ugh, syncing b-roll audio...  
But the IQ of the GX85 can't be ignored, so I'll use it for now.  I suspect a year or so down the road Oly should be in the 4K game. ( curse you Olympus for not being there yet as I head into a big project! )  At that point, if they're even close to IQ of the Panys, I'll definitely head back to Olympus; simply for the ergos and the tidy audio set-up.  Seriously, for me, it just feels great to use.

Perhaps.  But then again, I say as a documentarian, so what?  From the POV of my reality I think I disagree with your assertion.
I guess, by certain perception, I'm in the "I can barely make it" camp.  As it happens, I've never been beholden to the idea that certain gear is inherently not-good-enough simply because of the market it's being sold to.  I rent when I need to and I shoot with many of these contemptible "toys" when I need to.  My opinion is that a tool is a tool.  I'm not going to bring a "knife to a gun fight" nor am I going to do the opposite.
It's curious, I think, how some people perceive themselves as superior in an (supposedly) artistic medium simply because they have more expensive pro tools to do the craft.  Does anyone else find that odd?  Especially these days?  That sort of elitism was curious even a decade ago.  Now, it really doesn't make sense.  Anyone with $3K can access more than good enough IQ/audio/post for a production that, with skill, will look around 90%+ as good as anything.  That's NOT rhetoric.  I'm convinced it's just the truth. 
What am I to believe?  The defensive opinions of industry professionals threatened by the gear democratization, or my lying eyes when I see the work of Kendy Ty or a Ruslan Pelykh?  You tell me, because there are a lot of people out there kicking ass with cameras that wouldn't even cover the cost of a friggin' camera battery from a few decades ago.
What get delivered is what counts.*
But, as far as I'm concerned, if I artistically need to use an iPhone or an Alexa to cross a finish line, that's what's gonna happen.  And for what I'm doing, it's been leaning toward the former rather than the later for years now.
Finally, I'd even argue "amateurs" is exactly a pejorative.  If anything, by the original etymology of that word, it probably has more merit and artistic integrity these days than "professional."
* ( For reasons only they can justify, a lot of corporate work I do actually wants the allure of "real" gear around during the process. )

Perhaps.  But then again, I say as a documentarian, so what?  From the POV of my reality I think I disagree with your assertion.
I guess, by certain perception, I'm in the "I can barely make it" camp.  As it happens, I've never been beholden to the idea that certain gear is inherently not-good-enough simply because of the market it's being sold to.  I rent when I need to and I shoot with many of these contemptible "toys" when I need to.  My opinion is that a tool is a tool.  I'm not going to bring a "knife to a gun fight" nor am I going to do the opposite.
It's curious, I think, how some people perceive themselves as superior in an (supposedly) artistic medium simply because they have more expensive pro tools to do the craft.  Does anyone else find that odd?  Especially these days?  That sort of elitism was curious even a decade ago.  Now, it really doesn't make sense.  Anyone with $3K can access more than good enough IQ/audio/post for a production that, with skill, will look around 90%+ as good as anything.  That's NOT rhetoric.  I'm convinced it's just the truth. 
What am I to believe?  The defensive opinions of industry professionals threatened by the gear democratization, or my lying eyes when I see the work of Kendy Ty or a Ruslan Pelykh?  You tell me, because there are a lot of people out there kicking ass with cameras that wouldn't even cover the cost of a friggin' camera battery from a few decades ago.
What get delivered is what counts.*
But, as far as I'm concerned, if I artistically need to use an iPhone or an Alexa to cross a finish line, that's what's gonna happen.  And for what I'm doing, it's been leaning toward the former rather than the later for years now.
Finally, I'd even argue "amateurs" is exactly a pejorative.  If anything, by the original etymology of that word, it probably has more merit and artistic integrity these days than "professional."
* ( For reasons only they can justify, a lot of corporate work I do actually wants the allure of "real" gear around during the process. )

Perhaps.  But then again, I say as a documentarian, so what?  From the POV of my reality I think I disagree with your assertion.
I guess, by certain perception, I'm in the "I can barely make it" camp.  As it happens, I've never been beholden to the idea that certain gear is inherently not-good-enough simply because of the market it's being sold to.  I rent when I need to and I shoot with many of these contemptible "toys" when I need to.  My opinion is that a tool is a tool.  I'm not going to bring a "knife to a gun fight" nor am I going to do the opposite.
It's curious, I think, how some people perceive themselves as superior in an (supposedly) artistic medium simply because they have more expensive pro tools to do the craft.  Does anyone else find that odd?  Especially these days?  That sort of elitism was curious even a decade ago.  Now, it really doesn't make sense.  Anyone with $3K can access more than good enough IQ/audio/post for a production that, with skill, will look around 90%+ as good as anything.  That's NOT rhetoric.  I'm convinced it's just the truth. 
What am I to believe?  The defensive opinions of industry professionals threatened by the gear democratization, or my lying eyes when I see the work of Kendy Ty or a Ruslan Pelykh?  You tell me, because there are a lot of people out there kicking ass with cameras that wouldn't even cover the cost of a friggin' camera battery from a few decades ago.
What get delivered is what counts.*
But, as far as I'm concerned, if I artistically need to use an iPhone or an Alexa to cross a finish line, that's what's gonna happen.  And for what I'm doing, it's been leaning toward the former rather than the later for years now.
Finally, I'd even argue "amateurs" is exactly a pejorative.  If anything, by the original etymology of that word, it probably has more merit and artistic integrity these days than "professional."
* ( For reasons only they can justify, a lot of corporate work I do actually wants the allure of "real" gear around during the process. )

Perhaps.  But then again, I say as a documentarian, so what?  From the POV of my reality I think I disagree with your assertion.
I guess, by certain perception, I'm in the "I can barely make it" camp.  As it happens, I've never been beholden to the idea that certain gear is inherently not-good-enough simply because of the market it's being sold to.  I rent when I need to and I shoot with many of these contemptible "toys" when I need to.  My opinion is that a tool is a tool.  I'm not going to bring a "knife to a gun fight" nor am I going to do the opposite.
It's curious, I think, how some people perceive themselves as superior in an (supposedly) artistic medium simply because they have more expensive pro tools to do the craft.  Does anyone else find that odd?  Especially these days?  That sort of elitism was curious even a decade ago.  Now, it really doesn't make sense.  Anyone with $3K can access more than good enough IQ/audio/post for a production that, with skill, will look around 90%+ as good as anything.  That's NOT rhetoric.  I'm convinced it's just the truth. 
What am I to believe?  The defensive opinions of industry professionals threatened by the gear democratization, or my lying eyes when I see the work of Kendy Ty or a Ruslan Pelykh?  You tell me, because there are a lot of people out there kicking ass with cameras that wouldn't even cover the cost of a friggin' camera battery from a few decades ago.
What get delivered is what counts.*
But, as far as I'm concerned, if I artistically need to use an iPhone or an Alexa to cross a finish line, that's what's gonna happen.  And for what I'm doing, it's been leaning toward the former rather than the later for years now.
Finally, I'd even argue "amateurs" is exactly a pejorative.  If anything, by the original etymology of that word, it probably has more merit and artistic integrity these days than "professional."
* ( For reasons only they can justify, a lot of corporate work I do actually wants the allure of "real" gear around during the process. )

Sure 'nuff.  Based on how I shoot, and the fact I'll be using the same glass as always, I expect footage will feel and "look" exactly like what I get out of my 5-axis EM5II --with just a heck of a lot better resolution! 
However, from all accounts the color is better than the GX7 and now, of course, there's the 4K.  So, you know, sharper images all around, but I'm thinking my experience with the camera will be what I'm used to with the GX7.  Breezy.  Effective.  A little bland to use, but not difficult.
As it happens, I grown incredibly fond of the ergonomics of the EM5II.  Man, I like shooting with that camera.  Nice EVF, wonderful battery grip, direct audio input and monitoring!!! (I mean, that's really one of it's great underappreciated features.  So damn practical. I love being able to record subjects with a wireless mic straight to the card and monitor it while it's happening.  So nice for documentary film making.)  
*Sigh* I'll miss THAT for sure.  While I'm shooting AND in post.  Ugh, syncing b-roll audio...  
But the IQ of the GX85 can't be ignored, so I'll use it for now.  I suspect a year or so down the road Oly should be in the 4K game. ( curse you Olympus for not being there yet as I head into a big project! )  At that point, if they're even close to IQ of the Panys, I'll definitely head back to Olympus; simply for the ergos and the tidy audio set-up.  Seriously, for me, it just feels great to use.

Good audio inputs and a more robust codec.  Otherwise I think they're doing fine and offer impressive value.

All cameras are good these days.  If you're still a spec sheet nerd, good for you.  The pros I know will use anything that ultimately does the job.  Even cheap "plasticy" cameras with lower build quality.  Hey, sometimes you don't need a camera to last 5-10 years.  Honestly, with the way the market moves, why would you?  The things are practically disposable now.
1" sensor?  Big deal.  Shallow DOF has become wildly overrated and overused.
This camera was on my radar as I do a lot of doc work.  I have no doubt it would look fine the way I shoot.  Ultimately, I decided to go with the GX85 for numerous other reasons, (the fact that I have loads of M43 glass and I need two of 'em)
The other main reason being that the GX85 looks like a simple stills camera and doesn't intimidate anyone or call attention to itself by looking like a professional piece of gear.  That's a huge "feature" for what I need to do.  That need I take very seriously.  And in my mind it offers a HUGE advantage over "pro" gear.  How would you put that on a spec sheet??
Quite simply, if the XC10 solves an important production problem, no doubt I'd buy it.  Certainly others are doing so.

All cameras are good these days.  If you're still a spec sheet nerd, good for you.  The pros I know will use anything that ultimately does the job.  Even cheap "plasticy" cameras with lower build quality.  Hey, sometimes you don't need a camera to last 5-10 years.  Honestly, with the way the market moves, why would you?  The things are practically disposable now.
1" sensor?  Big deal.  Shallow DOF has become wildly overrated and overused.
This camera was on my radar as I do a lot of doc work.  I have no doubt it would look fine the way I shoot.  Ultimately, I decided to go with the GX85 for numerous other reasons, (the fact that I have loads of M43 glass and I need two of 'em)
The other main reason being that the GX85 looks like a simple stills camera and doesn't intimidate anyone or call attention to itself by looking like a professional piece of gear.  That's a huge "feature" for what I need to do.  That need I take very seriously.  And in my mind it offers a HUGE advantage over "pro" gear.  How would you put that on a spec sheet??
Quite simply, if the XC10 solves an important production problem, no doubt I'd buy it.  Certainly others are doing so.

All cameras are good these days.  If you're still a spec sheet nerd, good for you.  The pros I know will use anything that ultimately does the job.  Even cheap "plasticy" cameras with lower build quality.  Hey, sometimes you don't need a camera to last 5-10 years.  Honestly, with the way the market moves, why would you?  The things are practically disposable now.
1" sensor?  Big deal.  Shallow DOF has become wildly overrated and overused.
This camera was on my radar as I do a lot of doc work.  I have no doubt it would look fine the way I shoot.  Ultimately, I decided to go with the GX85 for numerous other reasons, (the fact that I have loads of M43 glass and I need two of 'em)
The other main reason being that the GX85 looks like a simple stills camera and doesn't intimidate anyone or call attention to itself by looking like a professional piece of gear.  That's a huge "feature" for what I need to do.  That need I take very seriously.  And in my mind it offers a HUGE advantage over "pro" gear.  How would you put that on a spec sheet??
Quite simply, if the XC10 solves an important production problem, no doubt I'd buy it.  Certainly others are doing so.

All cameras are good these days.  If you're still a spec sheet nerd, good for you.  The pros I know will use anything that ultimately does the job.  Even cheap "plasticy" cameras with lower build quality.  Hey, sometimes you don't need a camera to last 5-10 years.  Honestly, with the way the market moves, why would you?  The things are practically disposable now.
1" sensor?  Big deal.  Shallow DOF has become wildly overrated and overused.
This camera was on my radar as I do a lot of doc work.  I have no doubt it would look fine the way I shoot.  Ultimately, I decided to go with the GX85 for numerous other reasons, (the fact that I have loads of M43 glass and I need two of 'em)
The other main reason being that the GX85 looks like a simple stills camera and doesn't intimidate anyone or call attention to itself by looking like a professional piece of gear.  That's a huge "feature" for what I need to do.  That need I take very seriously.  And in my mind it offers a HUGE advantage over "pro" gear.  How would you put that on a spec sheet??
Quite simply, if the XC10 solves an important production problem, no doubt I'd buy it.  Certainly others are doing so.

All cameras are good these days.  If you're still a spec sheet nerd, good for you.  The pros I know will use anything that ultimately does the job.  Even cheap "plasticy" cameras with lower build quality.  Hey, sometimes you don't need a camera to last 5-10 years.  Honestly, with the way the market moves, why would you?  The things are practically disposable now.
1" sensor?  Big deal.  Shallow DOF has become wildly overrated and overused.
This camera was on my radar as I do a lot of doc work.  I have no doubt it would look fine the way I shoot.  Ultimately, I decided to go with the GX85 for numerous other reasons, (the fact that I have loads of M43 glass and I need two of 'em)
The other main reason being that the GX85 looks like a simple stills camera and doesn't intimidate anyone or call attention to itself by looking like a professional piece of gear.  That's a huge "feature" for what I need to do.  That need I take very seriously.  And in my mind it offers a HUGE advantage over "pro" gear.  How would you put that on a spec sheet??
Quite simply, if the XC10 solves an important production problem, no doubt I'd buy it.  Certainly others are doing so.

Sorry for the lack of tact.  I was heavy on the rhetoric.  Good on you for calling me out on it.  To be fair, I've done exactly the same thing in the past to feel out new gear, and made a bit of a mess of it. 
https://vimeo.com/122338262 password="password"
But, I did mention "user error" because I do think it's important that folks understand viewers may be seeing that rather than limitations of the camera. 
On the other hand, I do agree it's great to shoot wild with something and see what happens.  Sometimes, as an online viewer, it's difficult to discern if it's the gear making mistakes or the shooter.  Sometimes it's both.  Anyway, it's not a knock against anyone's craft and ability, just a reminder to understand that what you see online is not always what you get.  

Because organic flaws such as imperfect focus pulls have character.  Seriously.  At least in my head.
I don't know if you've ever composed and arranged music on a computer, but if you rely on precision and algorithms to lock in rhythm, it ends up sounding rather soul less.  Imaging can be similar: too clean and clinical.
But, I understand CAF is a useful tool.  it has been refined for dedicated motion picture cameras.  I've seen it in action and was impressed, but I personally wouldn't use it for my stuff.
Also, expecting smooth motion-picture-efficient CAF in a $700 photography camera (this year) is overly optimistic.
 

If you want to make it easy, put whatever you got on f8, shoot wide, manual focus, and have fun.
Technical considerations are all well and good, but if you're having a blast just grabbing cool shots and the vibe on set (or when documenting stuff) is loose and fun, that's a heck of a lot more important than anything else.
Don't get in your own way when filming! 

Because organic flaws such as imperfect focus pulls have character.  Seriously.  At least in my head.
I don't know if you've ever composed and arranged music on a computer, but if you rely on precision and algorithms to lock in rhythm, it ends up sounding rather soul less.  Imaging can be similar: too clean and clinical.
But, I understand CAF is a useful tool.  it has been refined for dedicated motion picture cameras.  I've seen it in action and was impressed, but I personally wouldn't use it for my stuff.
Also, expecting smooth motion-picture-efficient CAF in a $700 photography camera (this year) is overly optimistic.
 

A fair chunk of this new LUMIX video footage I've seen online seems to be shot by photography enthusiasts that might be, umm... let's just say technically challenged when it comes to finessing motion pictures.  The old power plant footage is good to my eye, however.
At any rate, I've certainly seen user error, bad shutter speeds -- and even lousy vimeo playback, which could be an issue.
I suppose this should be expected.  Not too many film pros are clamoring to get their hand on a new $700 camera like the GX85 and create videos that they would then screen online.  You often get the dudes that like playing with new toys, not necessarily the ones that'll take their time to understand how to creatively maximize the motion picture aesthetic.
That said, many people do seem to have a more discerning eye than me in regards to motion cadence.  Maybe there is something about it that you don't like.  Perhaps even a 24fps rate makes you uncomfortable?  The best bet is to get ahold of actual camera files and see what you think using them in your NLE. 
Myself? I like using a 0° shutter with 24p.  A good dose of motion blur and the traditional film frame rate is a "flaw" I actually sorta like.  Not typical, but I prefer certain imperfections in my image.  Anything to take the edge off the clinical quality of digital and lean it towards an analog feel.

A fair chunk of this new LUMIX video footage I've seen online seems to be shot by photography enthusiasts that might be, umm... let's just say technically challenged when it comes to finessing motion pictures.  The old power plant footage is good to my eye, however.
At any rate, I've certainly seen user error, bad shutter speeds -- and even lousy vimeo playback, which could be an issue.
I suppose this should be expected.  Not too many film pros are clamoring to get their hand on a new $700 camera like the GX85 and create videos that they would then screen online.  You often get the dudes that like playing with new toys, not necessarily the ones that'll take their time to understand how to creatively maximize the motion picture aesthetic.
That said, many people do seem to have a more discerning eye than me in regards to motion cadence.  Maybe there is something about it that you don't like.  Perhaps even a 24fps rate makes you uncomfortable?  The best bet is to get ahold of actual camera files and see what you think using them in your NLE. 
Myself? I like using a 0° shutter with 24p.  A good dose of motion blur and the traditional film frame rate is a "flaw" I actually sorta like.  Not typical, but I prefer certain imperfections in my image.  Anything to take the edge off the clinical quality of digital and lean it towards an analog feel.

I find this curious as well. Shooting video, in my mind, needs manual focusing. And most of what I shoot is documentary style, not narrative, so if pulling focus in a run n gun situation is doable, then it's even easier when things are under control.
I can't imagine letting any auto system control focus for me. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I certainly don't trust it.
Yet, in online comments such as these, auto focus seems to be one of the items at the top of spec sheets people like to acquire and/or brag about.
Of course, if you need the speed for action photography, different story
For video though, I'll stick with my collection of cheap old manual glass and the less inclined can buy the fancy stuff. 

A fair chunk of this new LUMIX video footage I've seen online seems to be shot by photography enthusiasts that might be, umm... let's just say technically challenged when it comes to finessing motion pictures.  The old power plant footage is good to my eye, however.
At any rate, I've certainly seen user error, bad shutter speeds -- and even lousy vimeo playback, which could be an issue.
I suppose this should be expected.  Not too many film pros are clamoring to get their hand on a new $700 camera like the GX85 and create videos that they would then screen online.  You often get the dudes that like playing with new toys, not necessarily the ones that'll take their time to understand how to creatively maximize the motion picture aesthetic.
That said, many people do seem to have a more discerning eye than me in regards to motion cadence.  Maybe there is something about it that you don't like.  Perhaps even a 24fps rate makes you uncomfortable?  The best bet is to get ahold of actual camera files and see what you think using them in your NLE. 
Myself? I like using a 0° shutter with 24p.  A good dose of motion blur and the traditional film frame rate is a "flaw" I actually sorta like.  Not typical, but I prefer certain imperfections in my image.  Anything to take the edge off the clinical quality of digital and lean it towards an analog feel.