fuzzynormal

I'm on a film festival committee.  Trust me when I say almost all indy movies look really good these days.  IQ looks on par with just about anything.  Even work that has limited dynamic range still looks pretty impressive.
As for all the other stuff that's actually more important in making a narrative film... well, not so much.
So, if you think what camera you're shooting with is what's holding you back.  IMHO, you're wrong.  So, you pick up and use what you're going to pick up and use.  That's it.  Stop thinking about the limitations of it.  You made the choice, move on.  Now, make smart lighting decisions.  Get a good audio guy (for god's sake please do this), concentrate on telling a good story, and find some actors that can actually do so.
Trust me, no one's going to give two shit(es) if you're dynamic range in 10 stops or 13.  Your skin tone looks a little goofy?  Oh well, I forgive you if you're showing me some interesting characters on screen.

I'm on a film festival committee.  Trust me when I say almost all indy movies look really good these days.  IQ looks on par with just about anything.  Even work that has limited dynamic range still looks pretty impressive.
As for all the other stuff that's actually more important in making a narrative film... well, not so much.
So, if you think what camera you're shooting with is what's holding you back.  IMHO, you're wrong.  So, you pick up and use what you're going to pick up and use.  That's it.  Stop thinking about the limitations of it.  You made the choice, move on.  Now, make smart lighting decisions.  Get a good audio guy (for god's sake please do this), concentrate on telling a good story, and find some actors that can actually do so.
Trust me, no one's going to give two shit(es) if you're dynamic range in 10 stops or 13.  Your skin tone looks a little goofy?  Oh well, I forgive you if you're showing me some interesting characters on screen.

I'm on a film festival committee.  Trust me when I say almost all indy movies look really good these days.  IQ looks on par with just about anything.  Even work that has limited dynamic range still looks pretty impressive.
As for all the other stuff that's actually more important in making a narrative film... well, not so much.
So, if you think what camera you're shooting with is what's holding you back.  IMHO, you're wrong.  So, you pick up and use what you're going to pick up and use.  That's it.  Stop thinking about the limitations of it.  You made the choice, move on.  Now, make smart lighting decisions.  Get a good audio guy (for god's sake please do this), concentrate on telling a good story, and find some actors that can actually do so.
Trust me, no one's going to give two shit(es) if you're dynamic range in 10 stops or 13.  Your skin tone looks a little goofy?  Oh well, I forgive you if you're showing me some interesting characters on screen.

There's a lot of options because everyone's needs are different.  For instance, having something that delivers on set editing with relative ease makes the decision a bit more narrow.  I love camera gear and I love using the latest and greatest, but if you only have a small budget you make the decision and then move on.  Whatever you choose will have limitations.
The cool thing is, those limitations push your other skills.  And those other skills are the things that actually matter the most.  I look at using low-end gear as a kind of win-win situation.  Cheap, good IQ these days, and forces one to be much more considerate when shooting to eek out better shots.

I'm on a film festival committee.  Trust me when I say almost all indy movies look really good these days.  IQ looks on par with just about anything.  Even work that has limited dynamic range still looks pretty impressive.
As for all the other stuff that's actually more important in making a narrative film... well, not so much.
So, if you think what camera you're shooting with is what's holding you back.  IMHO, you're wrong.  So, you pick up and use what you're going to pick up and use.  That's it.  Stop thinking about the limitations of it.  You made the choice, move on.  Now, make smart lighting decisions.  Get a good audio guy (for god's sake please do this), concentrate on telling a good story, and find some actors that can actually do so.
Trust me, no one's going to give two shit(es) if you're dynamic range in 10 stops or 13.  Your skin tone looks a little goofy?  Oh well, I forgive you if you're showing me some interesting characters on screen.

I'm on a film festival committee.  Trust me when I say almost all indy movies look really good these days.  IQ looks on par with just about anything.  Even work that has limited dynamic range still looks pretty impressive.
As for all the other stuff that's actually more important in making a narrative film... well, not so much.
So, if you think what camera you're shooting with is what's holding you back.  IMHO, you're wrong.  So, you pick up and use what you're going to pick up and use.  That's it.  Stop thinking about the limitations of it.  You made the choice, move on.  Now, make smart lighting decisions.  Get a good audio guy (for god's sake please do this), concentrate on telling a good story, and find some actors that can actually do so.
Trust me, no one's going to give two shit(es) if you're dynamic range in 10 stops or 13.  Your skin tone looks a little goofy?  Oh well, I forgive you if you're showing me some interesting characters on screen.

I'm on a film festival committee.  Trust me when I say almost all indy movies look really good these days.  IQ looks on par with just about anything.  Even work that has limited dynamic range still looks pretty impressive.
As for all the other stuff that's actually more important in making a narrative film... well, not so much.
So, if you think what camera you're shooting with is what's holding you back.  IMHO, you're wrong.  So, you pick up and use what you're going to pick up and use.  That's it.  Stop thinking about the limitations of it.  You made the choice, move on.  Now, make smart lighting decisions.  Get a good audio guy (for god's sake please do this), concentrate on telling a good story, and find some actors that can actually do so.
Trust me, no one's going to give two shit(es) if you're dynamic range in 10 stops or 13.  Your skin tone looks a little goofy?  Oh well, I forgive you if you're showing me some interesting characters on screen.

Okay, okay. You don't want someone looking green...but what new camera when properly set up for studio shooting is going to fail at acquiring decent skin tone?
Or any camera made in the last few years, to be honest?
Serious question, that, Mattias, you play with more cameras than just about anyone.
I'm just amazed people will dismiss a camera because some other camera makes human flesh look subjectively "dreamy."  Even though that may well be true, when you can control your set up and setting, you can dial in the colors to your liking.
Maybe I'm the one being nuts here, but I really think that for this level of production, one could buy a used $200 G3 and a used $10 Pentax lens and still make it look great. 

All this going on and on about color --as if content creators could never make a good video without someone's skin tone looking like a Vermeer painting right off of the sensor.  C'mon, someone's skin tone should probably be the least of your worries with modern gear.  All of it is more than good enough. 
Sorry, I really shouldn't gripe and be an old fart about this.  
It's just that you're making interview videos for freaking YouTube.  If you have half a clue what you're doing... Sony is fine.  Panasonic is fine.  Canon is Fine.  Nikon is fine.  I mean, look what you're getting for less than 1K.  It's practically magic these days and it only costs a handful of beans.  Use it, make fun stuff, and be happy.
(Jeez, I'm seriously getting curmudgeonly about things these days.  Don't get old kids, it makes you cranky!) 
So anyway...I'd buy a G7... and why would you need a speed booster for talking head studio stuff? 

Okay, okay. You don't want someone looking green...but what new camera when properly set up for studio shooting is going to fail at acquiring decent skin tone?
Or any camera made in the last few years, to be honest?
Serious question, that, Mattias, you play with more cameras than just about anyone.
I'm just amazed people will dismiss a camera because some other camera makes human flesh look subjectively "dreamy."  Even though that may well be true, when you can control your set up and setting, you can dial in the colors to your liking.
Maybe I'm the one being nuts here, but I really think that for this level of production, one could buy a used $200 G3 and a used $10 Pentax lens and still make it look great. 

All this going on and on about color --as if content creators could never make a good video without someone's skin tone looking like a Vermeer painting right off of the sensor.  C'mon, someone's skin tone should probably be the least of your worries with modern gear.  All of it is more than good enough. 
Sorry, I really shouldn't gripe and be an old fart about this.  
It's just that you're making interview videos for freaking YouTube.  If you have half a clue what you're doing... Sony is fine.  Panasonic is fine.  Canon is Fine.  Nikon is fine.  I mean, look what you're getting for less than 1K.  It's practically magic these days and it only costs a handful of beans.  Use it, make fun stuff, and be happy.
(Jeez, I'm seriously getting curmudgeonly about things these days.  Don't get old kids, it makes you cranky!) 
So anyway...I'd buy a G7... and why would you need a speed booster for talking head studio stuff? 

All this going on and on about color --as if content creators could never make a good video without someone's skin tone looking like a Vermeer painting right off of the sensor.  C'mon, someone's skin tone should probably be the least of your worries with modern gear.  All of it is more than good enough. 
Sorry, I really shouldn't gripe and be an old fart about this.  
It's just that you're making interview videos for freaking YouTube.  If you have half a clue what you're doing... Sony is fine.  Panasonic is fine.  Canon is Fine.  Nikon is fine.  I mean, look what you're getting for less than 1K.  It's practically magic these days and it only costs a handful of beans.  Use it, make fun stuff, and be happy.
(Jeez, I'm seriously getting curmudgeonly about things these days.  Don't get old kids, it makes you cranky!) 
So anyway...I'd buy a G7... and why would you need a speed booster for talking head studio stuff? 

Look at my avatar.  It doesn't get much smaller than that.  GM1 with a set of a110 pentax prime lenses.

Yes.  And, as the client, they also tell me what visual style they want in those videos in order for me to get paid x amount of money.  Which, in their case includes a lot of slow-mo.  
Delivering to the client what they want is usually standard operating procedure in a client/vendor relationship.  Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you're on about, but it seems contrarian to me.  
Regardless, I'm here to tell you that a client will indeed make requests for things like slow-mo, and that being the case, I use cameras that can provide it.
As it happens, I have a shoot tomorrow in which I'll be at a race track for a client and I plan on shooting slow-mo for the piece.  60p conformed to 24p, but I would have certainly provided 120p slow-mo if the client could have paid a bit more in the budget.
Also, it'll be the first time I use the Xpro2 on a paying gig (as the B-Cam).  We'll see how it goes.

The more I see of modern cams, the more I'm convinced that as long as one knows what they're doing, they can accomplish anything and make it look awesome.  It's only going to get cheaper and better.  Based on these sorts of examples, I'd only be hesitant to shoot with the JVC because of build quality rather than IQ...and only because I've been burned with some of their cheap camcorders in the past; might be different now.
What one can do with $1K in gear is staggering to me.  And if you can spend 10K, you should be in IQ heaven.
Feels like we're all sort of on the other side of the pro-level IQ acquisition hump for consumers, the sort of reward that the 5DII promised those handful of years ago.  Man, that was fast.

The more I see of modern cams, the more I'm convinced that as long as one knows what they're doing, they can accomplish anything and make it look awesome.  It's only going to get cheaper and better.  Based on these sorts of examples, I'd only be hesitant to shoot with the JVC because of build quality rather than IQ...and only because I've been burned with some of their cheap camcorders in the past; might be different now.
What one can do with $1K in gear is staggering to me.  And if you can spend 10K, you should be in IQ heaven.
Feels like we're all sort of on the other side of the pro-level IQ acquisition hump for consumers, the sort of reward that the 5DII promised those handful of years ago.  Man, that was fast.

No.  I color grade my videos, but I don't pull or push too much so I haven't even bothered with the FLAT

I've been using the em100/EM5II for real estate "profile" videos.  Lots of talking heads and such.  Short shoots that last an hour or so.  I've done close to 40 of them so far.  While that real estate stuff isn't on my vimeo page, this one below is very similar in style and used the same em100/EM5II set-up:
 
I don't have the EM5II spec sheet in front of me. I don't know what Ω it prefers, but it plays nice enough with the Sennheiser.  I'm not going to say it is wonderful audio. I've got gear that does better, but it's not horrible either --and it works well enough for me to use it without any stress that it's going to fail.

Wow.  Ed O'Neil is playing guitar in a Raleigh North Carolina bar band?
Seriously though, good capabilities.  I'd stop that 1.2 down a touch though.  It's actually kind of amusing to see "night" shots a bit over exposed.  Technology these days is impressive.

Indeed.  Add to that the consideration that video is moving into a post-technical world, I think.  Not that tech is unimportant and the foundation of video, but the fact that even the base-line of stuff will be soon be more than "good enough" and video tech in general will become a raw commodity.
In less than a decade you're going to have just about everyone in developed countries shooting 8k on their phones and easily putting it online through any number of services.
From there it becomes less of "how awesome is your video tech" and what sort of advantage do you offer that allows me to share it?  How can I grab eyeballs with my content and can I do it better with hubbub.com vs. kablooey.com?
How the files get served, how information is controlled, how can I monetize my stuff with your service, etc.
The tech side will be a low priority.

Indeed.  Add to that the consideration that video is moving into a post-technical world, I think.  Not that tech is unimportant and the foundation of video, but the fact that even the base-line of stuff will be soon be more than "good enough" and video tech in general will become a raw commodity.
In less than a decade you're going to have just about everyone in developed countries shooting 8k on their phones and easily putting it online through any number of services.
From there it becomes less of "how awesome is your video tech" and what sort of advantage do you offer that allows me to share it?  How can I grab eyeballs with my content and can I do it better with hubbub.com vs. kablooey.com?
How the files get served, how information is controlled, how can I monetize my stuff with your service, etc.
The tech side will be a low priority.

I'm curious, in your opinion, is it more rewarding to make a living creating motion pictures for clients --or creating photo gear content on youtube and social media?  Also, how much traffic do you need to actually generate some sort of practical revenue?

It's a new era if Vimeo fails to compete.  It's a tough market.  I hope they succeed as, from what I can tell, their VOD streaming service is fair to indy filmmakers...but the tech needs to keep up.
The fact that a VOD film I have on the site doesn't pop up when doing a search of my production company name is maddening.
If anyone knows another VOD service that has a better revenue sharing scheme with equal streaming quality, please inform!

For what it's worth, I think protests like what y'all did are great.  However, if you want to talk about insane, imagine being a documentarian and willingly going into situation like this:
 

Insane run 'n gun?  I don't know about that.  Looks like it's less demanding than what most, documentary, news, corporate, and wedding shooters have been doing for decades.