fuzzynormal

Sure, but it's a technical medium. Nerds are needed. That's why cinema is such an inclusive craft/art form.  Making movies needs a big tent. The technical and artistic. 

But nobody wins internet arguments.  Thus, there is a failure to acquire e-penis points.  I am now sad.

Be sure to pick up some tolerance for a lot of inanity.  It's an election year here.  "Election" means something different to the U.S. culture and its citizens than it does to the rest of the world.  Plus, there's more than a bit of political existential hand wringing going on that we need to sort out, so expect even more navel gazing than typical. 
Going to New York City?  Maybe consider a visit to B&H.  Not only to consider a purchase, but check it out for social study.  (and you can review the EOS thread about that biz from a few month back too)
And no, US customs won't care about you carrying a camera.  Not sure where you're returning to, but I doubt it would matter there either.  I've never had issue bring gear into Europe...save for Spain, but that was decades ago before the EU and we had too much pro cases with us to be inconspicuous.

Here's a Quick review from someone that owns a GX7, EM5II, GX85 and likes to shoot with manual lenses.  The GX85 has great IQ.  Love the 4k and the colors are an improvement.  Ergos stink.  The EVF is a mess and, for lack of a better word, "terrible."  I would have thought it couldn't be any worse than the GX7, and I was right.  Unfortunately, it's the same.  Yikes.  On the EM5II, the EVF is so clear and clean that a user can actually use it to find manual focus.  It's not viable on my LUMIX cams, and to step backwards from that luxury is a shame.
The body grip of the GX85 is not comfortable (or reassuring in one's hand) and it's actually worse than the GX7 in that regard.
However, exposure controls are easily accessed and exposure monitoring is impressive.
This end-user ergos might not matter to you if you're not shooting a ton of footage, but once you try to get through full day shoots while handholding the GX85, it's something to seriously consider.  For now, the GX85 IQ is so superior to a camera like the EM5II, that it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
But, since the egos are so much better and nicer in the EM5II, at this point I would not hesitate to return to an Olympus camera once they finally adopt 4K.
*sigh* it's never perfect, eh?

Luckily, we're both wrong on our previous assumption!  And it's very simple:  Just push the shutter adjustment wheel and the camera does the "punch-in."  Pull your focus and half press the shutter release to pop back out to full screen.  Easy and nice.
BTW, near as can figure at the moment, this only works when a dumb lens is on the mount.

We all relate to the world differently, eh?  I'll still argue that knowing the why of an issue (even from a grumpy old cuss like me) is more important than being offered a subjective solution.  That way you can figure out an answer that works for your specific problem.  After all, it's your problem and you have the best insight on the nuances of it.
Agreed.  I do like the camera as well.  But it's hard to step down from a really good EVF like the EM5II.

Here's a Quick review from someone that owns a GX7, EM5II, GX85 and likes to shoot with manual lenses.  The GX85 has great IQ.  Love the 4k and the colors are an improvement.  Ergos stink.  The EVF is a mess and, for lack of a better word, "terrible."  I would have thought it couldn't be any worse than the GX7, and I was right.  Unfortunately, it's the same.  Yikes.  On the EM5II, the EVF is so clear and clean that a user can actually use it to find manual focus.  It's not viable on my LUMIX cams, and to step backwards from that luxury is a shame.
The body grip of the GX85 is not comfortable (or reassuring in one's hand) and it's actually worse than the GX7 in that regard.
However, exposure controls are easily accessed and exposure monitoring is impressive.
This end-user ergos might not matter to you if you're not shooting a ton of footage, but once you try to get through full day shoots while handholding the GX85, it's something to seriously consider.  For now, the GX85 IQ is so superior to a camera like the EM5II, that it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
But, since the egos are so much better and nicer in the EM5II, at this point I would not hesitate to return to an Olympus camera once they finally adopt 4K.
*sigh* it's never perfect, eh?

How would one use the audio from the GX85 regardless?  It's bad audio.  Good only for a scratch track to guide the sync process in post-production.
The only way to get good audio for any production, from your backyard home movies to the highest level film productions, is to get a mic near your subject.  This is fundamental.
I'm frankly a little surprised that there are people out there that would consider buying and owning loads of production gear to create impressive IQ, but then mount some mic to a camera hot shoe and think that was appropriate...for almost anything at all beside rough ambient noise/room tone.
Yet, all you have to do is watch a few vlogger youtube videos to see this ignorance.  I find it quite staggering because it's so ridiculously obvious a problem to solve.  A crappy mic in the proper place will be better than the most expensive mic in the world set up in the wrong place.
Audio is NOT Video.  You can't buy your way into an easy solution.  You want better IQ on your images?  A better camera/lens can do the trick.  You want better audio?  You better know how sound vibrations actually work --and know how to use that to your advantage.

How would one use the audio from the GX85 regardless?  It's bad audio.  Good only for a scratch track to guide the sync process in post-production.
The only way to get good audio for any production, from your backyard home movies to the highest level film productions, is to get a mic near your subject.  This is fundamental.
I'm frankly a little surprised that there are people out there that would consider buying and owning loads of production gear to create impressive IQ, but then mount some mic to a camera hot shoe and think that was appropriate...for almost anything at all beside rough ambient noise/room tone.
Yet, all you have to do is watch a few vlogger youtube videos to see this ignorance.  I find it quite staggering because it's so ridiculously obvious a problem to solve.  A crappy mic in the proper place will be better than the most expensive mic in the world set up in the wrong place.
Audio is NOT Video.  You can't buy your way into an easy solution.  You want better IQ on your images?  A better camera/lens can do the trick.  You want better audio?  You better know how sound vibrations actually work --and know how to use that to your advantage.

I recognize a bit of rationalization there to try and talk ones self into a purchase. amiright? ;-). Been there. 

I saw in the marketing that it's:
"4K enabled for video capture"
Thank god for that!  
It sure is funny how light behaves when it knows it's being captured at 4K resolutions... More impressive is how Pany has enabled it's lens to deal with those curious photons that apparently can change their behavior. 
Thats some quantum physics science-y level sheit right there. 
Good thing the Japanese and Germans are on it.
Good design and good ergonomics should be part of the same coin. 
Minimalism is okay when it's functional... It's very very difficult to design something to be simple but also practical. 
I own the gx85 and a Em5II. I'd RATHER shoot with the Oly; not that the Panasonic can't do the job, it just doesn't do it, for me, as easily and comfortably as the EM5II does it.
That said, I now shoot more with the GX85 because it's technically superior. 
However... Does one actually get better shots with a camera they love using, even if it's inferior??
Theres harmony to all this stuff. Sometimes when you hear that harmony, everything grooves together and it can be a lot of fun. And I know I'm more creative when I'm having fun. 

Seems like the GX85 would be okay.  
You stay in M43, shoot 4K, and you get a nice little camera that can stabilize your hand held shots.  I wouldn't nessecarily invest in a bunch of new glass if you don't really have to.  However, only you know how much low-light you're trying to deal with.  Personally, I've never had too much trouble with LUMIX cameras in low light, but I also have a f1.2 lens with a speed booster for darker shots, which helps tremendously.
As for the "pro"ness of it all, here's my anecdote:  During my wedding I gave my GM1 to my 16 year old nephew.  It had the Oly 45mm 1.8 lens on it.  With the f-stop wide open, aperture priority, and everything else set on automatic, I told him to go to town, frame up faces at eye level from 5 feet away, and shoot stills of everyone at the reception.  No flash, available light.  Because of those simple rules, the nice magic hour light that was filtering into the ballroom, and his personality of being willing and able to effortless socialize with strangers and warmly interact with him, he got twice as many good photographs of the reception than the wedding photog that was paid thousands of dollars to be there and was running around nervously with a Canon 1D, 5 different lenses, and a flash.  Our wedding album is half of my nephew's shots.
And we got all those pictures simply because he was curious about the little camera I was carrying around so I thought I'd let him use it and see what happened.
This incident just shows that photography is more about how one interacts with the environment they're in and takes advantage of it rather than the gear.  (Although the gear does help if you're also good at the craft of it all.)
Anyway, something to consider.

Seems like the GX85 would be okay.  
You stay in M43, shoot 4K, and you get a nice little camera that can stabilize your hand held shots.  I wouldn't nessecarily invest in a bunch of new glass if you don't really have to.  However, only you know how much low-light you're trying to deal with.  Personally, I've never had too much trouble with LUMIX cameras in low light, but I also have a f1.2 lens with a speed booster for darker shots, which helps tremendously.
As for the "pro"ness of it all, here's my anecdote:  During my wedding I gave my GM1 to my 16 year old nephew.  It had the Oly 45mm 1.8 lens on it.  With the f-stop wide open, aperture priority, and everything else set on automatic, I told him to go to town, frame up faces at eye level from 5 feet away, and shoot stills of everyone at the reception.  No flash, available light.  Because of those simple rules, the nice magic hour light that was filtering into the ballroom, and his personality of being willing and able to effortless socialize with strangers and warmly interact with him, he got twice as many good photographs of the reception than the wedding photog that was paid thousands of dollars to be there and was running around nervously with a Canon 1D, 5 different lenses, and a flash.  Our wedding album is half of my nephew's shots.
And we got all those pictures simply because he was curious about the little camera I was carrying around so I thought I'd let him use it and see what happened.
This incident just shows that photography is more about how one interacts with the environment they're in and takes advantage of it rather than the gear.  (Although the gear does help if you're also good at the craft of it all.)
Anyway, something to consider.

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.