Bob Goldberg

​You screwed up a number of things, but, first and foremost, the biggest mistake you're making is posting to YT. I've seen this type of thing happen repeatedly with their compression. YT completely obliterates the fine detail. What they don't alter is the contrast you (or the camera) apply to the video. What can (and often does) happen is that because much of the fine detail is gone, what we have left to compare cameras by is solely the contrast that's been applied. In that way, much less resolute cameras can look better on YT than actually good cameras. The better cameras often have contrast and saturation dialed down at default (while allowing you to adjust them up either in camera or in post). BTW, if you want to compress the GH2 footage in some way, you MUST make all the proper contrast adjustments BEFORE you do so. There's no way to properly fix this after it's been compressed. If you want to upload the GH2 footage without doing anything in post, then bump up the contrast, saturation, and sharpness in camera. But, this is all pointless anyway as the best way to compare the footage is OOC. I don't want to see your adjustments and they're of no use to me in evaluating a camera. Similarly, by the time it's been wrecked by YT, it's all pointless anyway. If you want us to fairly evaluate the footage, upload them both unedited. It's as simple as that, and I've never said otherwise. p.s. Judging things like AF is fine for YT, but judging the actual video quality is incredibly difficult there. If you do want to upload to YT, you absolutely must get contrast, saturation, and sharpness (either in camera or post) as close as possible before you upload. Even then, expect the fine detail to be whittled away. But you even failed to get the grading anywhere near the same for both cameras, so you did completely botch it. All you really have to do is upload the OOC footage. Nothing more, nothing less.

​I'm honestly at a loss for words for how poorly you've made the GH2 footage look. This is simply one of the most resolute 1080p cameras out there, and it looks like a toy the way you've shot it. Even with YT compression, I've seen this camera look vastly better. For one thing, the fact that your graded original footage looks so markedly different, even at 480p, means that you've used some seriously different settings and different grading techniques. The contrast adjustments are probably hugely different for these two cameras, with the E-M5 II getting a lot more. And once you've fed these two completely differently contrasted videos into YT's sh1tty compression scheme, this is the final outcome. The fact of the matter is, the GH2's contrast at baseline settings is far more understated than the E-M5 II. The E-M5 II is completely oversaturated and overcontrasted at all "0" settings, while the GH2 isn't. The adjustments you did for the GH2, you should have done for the E-M5 II, and vice versa. Or you could have left them both at all "0". I'm not saying this is intentional, but it's completely botched. I still believe that if you actually UPLOAD the two unedited files, we'll be able to see a lot more than what we're getting from YT.

​Based on what precisely? You know, with communication skills like these, you're really going places.

Even at 480p, the one on the left just looks much sharper. Forget 1080p. The fact of the matter is you never labeled them, but if the one on the left isn't the GH2, you did something seriously, seriously wrong. Because I've never seen the GH2 look a bad as the one on the right. And, forget the grading and YT posting. Most of us here are interested in seeing the unedited output from the cameras side by side. YT compression is known to destroy video quality. And someone else editing the video takes even more away from the comparison. And finally, I think you should be using similar quality lenses on both cameras. But, it's understandable if you want to shoot side by side and don't have similar lenses.

​I have a challenge for you. Why don't you go back and look at my posting history and see how many posts I made here that were not in direct response to you (or related to you in some way) and your questions of why I'm posting here? I think you'll be shocked at how many of my very limited posts have been in response to your "engagement" or "fixation" on me. You seem far more fixated on me than I am on anything here. And my posts would decrease markedly if I didn't have to keep responding to your inane observations of me. This is yet another post in direct response to your fixation.

​You're correct that I have no interest in this camera, but am I that transparent? I've generally tried to just blend in here and not stand out from the crowd, but it seems I've failed. Just out of curiosity, how could you tell that I'm not really interested in this camera? I've tried my best to conceal this fact from everyone, and I'm not sure what I can do in the future to avoid making it obvious to people. But, even with my failures, I don't think I'm off-topic here at all since the topic of this thread really IS NOT about getting the most out of this camera and settings, etc. My discussion of Olympus' advertising strategy, comparisons with the GH2, etc. is completely on topic for this thread, as are your comparisons with the E-M1. In fact, I can't think of anything much remotely related to the E-M5 II that would be off topic here. Perhaps if you want a thread entirely devoted to help with the E-M5 II settings, you should consider starting one devoted to that. Then most of what I'm saying here would probably be off-topic, and you can hit the "complain" button. fuzzynormal seems to be abnormally fixated on my completely on-topic discussions. I'm not sure why that is, TBH. And he believes I'm having some angst, while totally ignoring his own. Perhaps my inclusion of you in my discussion was incorrect.

​I don't believe talking heads (or portraits) are really that demanding of the resolving power of a camera, so it may not be an issue. It's only when you have landscapes and people at a distance that the camera needs to be able to resolve fine details. And without that resolving capability, you just get this impression of softness.

​You, Kotlos Kotlos, Flynn, etc. aren't really my target audience or who I'm primarily addressing with my posts. This is a public forum, and it might be read by a lot of people. I know better than to try to change the mind of anyone here.

​I have multiple GH2's. No E-M5 II though. I was the originator of these threads here: http://***URL removed***/forums/post/55285420 http://***URL removed***/forums/post/55404746 As you can see, I've been involved in this controversy long before this forum was involved. The simple fact of the matter is that I've watched every bit of RAW (i.e. unedited) video available from this camera since the first beta testers made the footage available. And I know full well how my Panasonic cameras would perform under these conditions. John Brawley's unedited footage was one of the first eye openers for me. There was simply no fine detail in the plant life or the tree bark. Again, if it were a Panasonic camera, it would be completely different. I'm sure I'll get some criticism for doing this without having the camera to test, but I believe the differences are so obvious and stark that I don't even need to own the camera to say what I'm saying. DPReview's "promo" video for this camera pretty much says it all BTW. Even though it's just a YT video and I haven't seen the unedited footage, it's just shockingly soft and poor for a camera that's supposedly video oriented.

​Except that this is completely false. There are a few posters here either implying or straight out saying that this is better quality that Panasonic high bitrate video. I would put Kotlos Kotlos and Flynn right up there. Here's a quote from Flynn, "Not as nice as a Blackmagic Pocket but not terrible. Looks as good as good as a hacked GH2 to me." Here's a quote from Inquisitive slightly after he received his camera, "I'm going to run it against my hacked GH2 if it beats that I will be happy enough." After he actually tested it, I think he was disappointed, but he did expect it to beat a hacked GH2. And there's actually been a lot more of that. Why do I care if people believe that this camera can beat a hacked GH2 (a nearly 5 year old camera) for detail? The reason I care is that it's not even close. The GH2 obliterates this camera. I do have a problem with people thinking that this camera is the best MFT has to offer, or even close to it. I have a problem with people buying into the system for video with this camera and walking away disappointed and trashing the system. I also have a problem with people buying into thhe system with this camera and assuming this is the best they can get for video period, without having tried other stuff. And, finally, I have a problem with Olympus marketing this camera as being competitive with any other camera out there for pro level video quality. That is, in fact, what they did. If you'll notice, I don't really get into these "debates" anywhere and everywhere. I generally pick my spots, and this seems as good of a spot as any. I've really made an impression with all of my 19 posts, haven't I? Similarly, I felt that DPReview was a good spot when John Brawley was around recommending the BMPCC and E-M5 II and claiming Panasonic had done nothing for him lately for video. Contrary to what you might think, I have no desire to fight. This is all strategery (as W. would say) on my part, and it takes very little effort for me.

​Well, now it's you and John Brawley that think I'm worked up, but I think you're mistaking being incredibly thorough and detailed with emotion. I'm not being emotional at all with any of my posts. I'm a little aggressive, but I don't believe I've had any emotions whatsoever with anything I've said here. Just stating the facts as I see them. Clearly my writing style stands out here (as it usually does everywhere I go), but I can't help that. Chalk it up to my stratospherically high IQ.

​My problem is that some things are subjective and debatable, such as your preference Olympus jpeg colors or Panasonic jpeg colors, etc. Here, I don't believe there's a right or wrong. It's just an opinion. When some people are trying to say that the E-M5 II matches up to Panasonic cameras (even the 5 year old GH2) for video detail, well, that's not a matter of opinion. I think that's either some kind of visual impairment or some kind of propaganda, because it should be clear to anyone with a normally functioning visual system that this camera doesn't match up to ANY recent Panasonic camera. What these people are doing is simply taking away from what Panasonic has accomplished on the video front by trying to make everything equal (oh, of course, except for Olympus having IBIS, which makes them better ). It reminds me of some schools now where everyone gets an award for participation, regardless of how poorly they perform. How does this benefit anyone? What possible motivation is there to continue to produce quality video when you can produce complete sh1t quality and get this ridiculous praise. I guess what I have a problem with is that it's so ridiculously clear to me watching video from Panasonic and Olympus which one kicks the other's butt. I guess you have a problem with the fact that I'm seeing blatantly wrong statements and I feel I should say something about it. Because I don't believe what I'm saying about Olympus' video quality really falls to the level of opinion. I believe it to be objectively poor compared to Panasonic's standard, and I believe the people trying to equate the two are objectively wrong. It's not like I'm getting into some argument about who's jpeg color science is better and getting into a shouting argument stating that Panasonic's is better.

​Presumably this is a stills setup, as Fuji is pretty much bottom of the barrel (and then some) for video. http://***URL removed***/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/5 I'm sure they're good for stills, but they'll probably never be competitive for video. And, in your comparison you're not taking the totality of the lenses and their sizes into consideration. For instance, what else compares size-wise to the GM5 + 20mm f/1.7? And what other system has the same collection of lenses as MFT? What other system has a manufacturer delivering the kind of video quality Panasonic is routinely? For that matter, if IBIS is your thing, what other system is doing it anywhere near Olympus? I simply don't see any other choice for myself. Samsung just isn't anywhere near as well developed as MFT for video, with only a couple cameras now and a pretty limited lens choice that I don't believe is as good as optically as MFT. Sony is in the same boat with a single very expensive 4K cam (that doesn't record internally) and a much more limited lens selection. Fuji isn't even on my radar, and I doubt they ever will be. And finally, we haven't yet seen the end game wrt to sensor development. If MFT were to get a sensor like that on the RX100 III, scaled up to MFT size (i.e. double the size), you're going to see massively improved performance from the system. We have yet to get that type of quality sensor or, for that matter, BSI. At that point you'll be seeing stills performance that's pretty much good enough for any purpose. FWIW, I'd like to see Olympus combine their IBIS with Panasonic video quality. But I'm not convinced it's possible.

​That's bologna. It's well-written bologna, but bologna nonetheless. When the average consumer is working with a Panasonic or Sony camera for video, they're typically not working unstabilized. They have very well stabilized lenses to choose from. Sure, it doesn't give you the ability to run or walk and maintain the steadiness like Olympus does, but how many of these people are going to be doing that anyway. The fact of the matter is, even for the most amateur of amateurs, they're going to get better results that are going to be very watchable a decade from now with Panasonic, not Olympus. I'm an amateur and this junk Olympus is producing is not even good enough for me. How is it good enough for people that make money off of it? If an amateur wants perfectly steady video with top notch quality, their are many camcorders with way better quality than what Olympus is doing and stabilization on par. In fact, Sony camcorders with balanced OIS are actually BETTER than Olympus 5-axis IBIS with way, way better quality. It's just ridiculous to think that you should recommend Olympus to these people when a Sony or Panasonic camcorder would give them vastly better results. I've been getting better and sharper results with these types of camcorders for a long time. And they're very stable. In fact, Panasonic's 3MOS camcorders (used) are still a better choice for a typical consumer, and they only cost a few hundred. The quality of those 5 year old camcorders simply mops the floor with Olympus. If an amateur wants top notch quality, then a GH4 (or even any GH camera), a Sony 4K , or Samsung 4K would be their best choice and, again, not Olympus. There's simply a very, very narrow subset of people that would be best served by Olympus' 5-axis IBIS unless they can DRASTICALLY improve their video quality. Not just a little or incremental. They need a massive leap forward in tech. Great stabilization has been available in the consumer sphere for a very long time, and I just see this as a completely unnecessary step that only serves a very small percentage of people, namely those looking to use interchangeable lenses with great stabilization. This doesn't describe the typical consumer. It doesn't even describe the typical pro, such as news organizations.

​I have a few points to make. First is that I don't believe any of the cameras I mentioned have "aggressive" sharpness. They just have a lot of fine detail (but not oversharpened), more than some might be looking for, but you can't deny the trend toward more detail in motion pictures is already well under way. Second, you can always subtract detail (either by lens choice, settings, or in post) but you can't add back what was never there. Third, the vast majority of people these camera are targeted at are not film makers, have not a great deal of artistic interest, and would be well served by the imaging device actually capable of gathering the most fine detail. Whether its parents recording their kids, people interested in documenting some aspect of their lives, or even news gatherers, none of these people would be better served by a soft, fuzzy image, IMO. It's about time manufacturers got off their behinds and started focusing on video. And my problem is that all of the praise being given to this Olympus camera for video is just a signal that fine detail is not important. Well, I don't understand why that's always been the primary selling point of stills cameras but video shooters are still relegated to decades old quality. I think enough is enough of that. We should stop giving false praise to the Canons, Nikons, and Olympuses of the world for their mediocre video quality. Demand more. It's been far too long coming. We have cell phones now than shoot WAY better video than any of these companies have produced in consumer level products. Better than either Nikon or Olympus have EVER produced period. Seriously, the Sony Xperia, Samsung Galaxy, etc. have better, sharper video than Nikon or Olympus have ever produced on a real camera. This is completely unacceptable IMO. Stop praising these companies for putting out garbage year after year. The Sony Xperia, BTW, has excellent stabilization (all digital) in 4K mode. It does a quite decent job with the camera man walking, all while maintaining much better video quality than the E-M5 II. If these companies don't get off their fat behinds at some point they're going to get their hats handed to them on the imaging front. That's the whole point of dedicated cameras, better IQ than phones can provide. And they're not even doing that for crying out loud. I'd rather shoot video with an Xperia than anything from Olympus. p.s. Can you tell that I feel strongly about this?

​I'm sorry, but maybe one of us needs glasses. It's decent for a YT video on my tiny laptop screen, but try that on a 50" screen and you'll be screaming for some detail. Even with the camera up at point blank range to the actors' faces, I can barely see a hint of skin texture. No offense, but this is just a marked step backwards from some incredibly cheap cameras on the market today, such as the GH2, G6, GX7, etc. All of these cameras can reproduce much, much more detail than this.

​Well, I don't see how it could possibly beat a hacked GH2 for video quality. The GH2 will pretty much mop the floor with the E-M5 II. But it would be great if you could post some sample footage with both of them shooting the same thing.

​This type of video gives the illusion of sharpness by shooting nothing but close-ups. What I've noticed with people claiming this camera produces sharp video is that they're almost invariably shooting at point blank range. When someone shows me a sharp video with distant landscapes or even trees, shrubs, and other plant life at moderate distances, then that's a start. But all this extreme close-up nonsense is simply a coverup for the deficiencies of this camera.

​ That's interesting. From your test, I can see no obvious difference between the two, but sometimes it takes additional testing to actually find a difference, if there is one. One of the things I like to do to really put the quality of the ETC mode to the test is to compare it to a 1920x1080 crop from a still image taken with the camera under identical conditions and using identical settings. This is a comparison of two images from my GH2 using identical settings. The first is a 1920x1080 crop from a jpeg. The second is a frame grab using 1080p ETC mode and simply run through temporal noise reduction (no profile building or anything like that). It's quite clear to me that the ETC mode retains quite a bit more detail than the jpeg still images because you can't do temporal NR on still images. I can get a frame grab from the ETC mode cleaner and sharper. Really, this is quite amazing work from Panasonic on a 2010 camera. Their video compression simply defies belief, IMO.

​That's exactly my point, about NR not continuing to increase as the sensor continues to heat up. My point is that the manufacturer will turn up the NR high enough from the outset that the video won't look any different whether the sensor is cool or hot because they won't want you to perceive a difference in IQ depending on the circumstances. Of course, I could be wrong about this, but I do believe this is what they do. One of the main reasons we perceive differences in detail between different cameras is precisely because different cameras have different levels of NR depending on various factors. Smaller sensor cameras will generally have more NR so that they might look as clean as large sensor cameras in low light, but the level of detail will be way different. Similarly, BSI sensors can do with less NR in low light, so the only perceptible difference between a BSI sensor and a non-BSI sensor in low light might be a difference in detail (not necessarily noise) because the NR applied to the non-BSI sensor wipes away that detail. I believe what manufacturers do is apply NR to suit the worst possible conditions of ambient temperatures, record time, etc. so that there will be no perceptible differences depending on conditions.

​What about color balance and color shift issues? On some of my old CCTV cams (composite video out) that had poor heat sinking, the colors would shift dramatically after they were left on for a while. Of course, those were CCD rather than modern CMOS sensors, but I would be surprised if there were no color shift issues with sensor overheating, even now. And let's say you don't have a professional camera but a consumer level camera like the E-M5 II that has no warnings for overheating, no time limits on recording, and has to maintain a constant quality regardless of settings, environmental conditions, or how long you're recording. What type of manifestation would overheating have on a cam like this? I'm no expert on the issue, but I would assume the way they would handle noise issues is to increase the NR to the point where the noise would be concealed, even under worst case scenarios. In that way, you wouldn't see any difference in quality whether you're recording for 1 min or 20 min or whether you're recording in 20 F temps or 100 F. Presumably, you see no difference in quality on the E-M5 II regardless of conditions or record times, correct?

​The answer is, I don't know for certain. There has certainly been a lot of speculation that IBIS is not compatible with the most high end video and that it might be possible to produce decent or passable video (such as D750 quality), but not GH4 type video. Panasonic execs have weighed in on this issue in interviews with IR: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/09/28/qa-with-panasonic-the-story-behind-the-new-gh3-and-compact-system-tech http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/06/17/panasonic-executive-interview-part-ii-gh4-4k-isnt-just-about-video-and-read Again, it's entirely possible the speculation is wrong, but, until I actually see a camera with IBIS active in video mode (not just having IBIS like the GX7) and producing 4K video like the GH4, I'm going to continue to assume that it does have a negative impact.

​That's because I'm not sure you hang out in the same corners I do. Olympus seems to have much more of a bigger (and more rabid) cult following than Panasonic and Samsung (and possibly Sony), although for the life of me, I can't figure out why. I liken them to a pack of wolves waiting for the slightest thing to pounce on and proclaim Olympus the king of video. I've honestly never seen anything like it before. For instance, I've been reading the DPReview forums for a long time (especially micro four thirds), and I've never seen them care about video in the slightest. Even when Panasonic was breaking totally new ground with the GH2 and GH4, not a peep out of that forum. Then, all of a sudden, Olympus so much as markets their camera for video (without actually delivering anything), and these rabid wolves come out from nowhere with thread after thread about how the E-M5 II is better for video than the GH4 and its 4K. There were a few threads inquiring about getting a GX7 or GH3 vs an E-M5 II for video, and the consensus seemed to be that the E-M5 II video was on par with the GH3 but the added IBIS gave it an edge. Well, this is utter nonsense, because you'd have to be blind to believe the E-M5 II was anywhere near the GH3. This type of stuff is really what prompted me to get involved. Never mind the fact that these people don't shoot a lick of video and don't care in the slightest about video and don't know a thing about video. They just want to promote their brand. And it simply isn't one or two people doing this but a large subset of the forum. When I started some of my threads about how the E-M5 II was actually poor for video (contrary to the press releases and John Brawley), the anger was palpable. And you'd have to wonder why, since, again, the vast majority of these people don't shoot video and don't care about it. I simply don't understand this mentality because I need something that actually works, and I don't care which brand it comes from. And I believe these type of people are honestly why technology can regress. There's no logic. There's no reason. There's only some kind of misplaced emotion. Regarding the GX7, I'm not convinced that the ETC mode on that is going to be as good as the GH series. It may be decent but the GH cameras are an entirely different beast. But I don't really have any of the more modern non-GH cameras, such as the GX7, to compare. So, I could be wrong and possibly the GX7 is right up there.

​It has nothing to do with sensor tech. Panasonic is using the same sensors. In fact, the GH3 has the same sensor as the E-M5 (a Sony sensor). The GH4 has the same sensor as the E-M1 (a Panasonic sensor). You're right about the fact that Olympus is a much smaller company than Panasonic, and the big video players tend to be giant companies (Sony, Panasonic, and, recently, Samsung) with deep pockets. But it has nothing to do with the sensor itself. It's the other supporting hardware. And, there's also a strong possibility that none of the aforementioned companies could do the type of video they're doing if they had to deal with IBIS (and the heat issues). The logic isn't "odd" because none of these companies value their tech (if it doesn't sell or they don't see a market for it). They value what they can sell. Or more specifically, they value what's valuable, money. If IBIS becomes the next big thing in ILCs with the BUYING public and IBIS happens to kill video quality, then kiss video quality goodbye in ILCs. Do you think these companies are going to continue developing a tech that doesn't sell because they "value it". Think again. The fact is, sensor shift stabilization will never catch on in P&S cameras (i.e. fixed lens cameras) because it's much less effective in them than OIS. Every premium (and even good) fixed lens camera ever made has used lens OIS (and not sensor shift stabilization). But, arguably, where video quality is needed most (in ILCs), that's where it could take hold. Now, if the speculation is wrong about IBIS killing video quality, then I have no problem with it at all. In fact, I welcome it. But if the speculation is correct, then I really would prefer that video reviewers are as blunt as possible not only about the effectiveness of the stabilization but of the quality of the video that the camera produces. Don't sugarcoat the video quality because you really love the stabilization. The average consumer has no clue about video quality, and, if you rave about the E-M1 (because of the stabilization) but don't mention that the video quality is nowhere near the GH3 (or even the GH2), then that will mislead them into thinking the E-M1 is a better video camera when, IMO, the opposite is quite clearly the truth. Regarding Panasonic's ETC mode, it so vastly outclasses Oly's 2X crop, it's laughable. I was just talking about this on DPReview and I posted a frame grab comparing the GH2's ETC mode to a 1920x1080 crop of a jpeg using identical conditions. The frame grab absolutely blew away the jpeg crop for detail, but it was a lot noisier. But, as I mentioned, I can remove virtually all of the noise in the video using temporal noise reduction (in Neat or some other denoiser). When I do NR on ETC video, I don't even do the regular NR. I put all the settings to "0" and just do the temporal part. And the video is so clean, it's ridiculous. Contrary to you, I don't find the ETC useless at all. It just needs some cleaning up, but it's actually sharper than the full sensor video, to my eye. It's only the Oly's 2X video crop that's useless, again, IMO. It's nowhere near as sharp. In fact, as I mentioned on DPReview, I actually use the 1080p ETC mode to test the center sharpness of new lenses (to decide whether to keep them or not) because I find the level of detail rendering so much better than the still images (or more accurately, a center crop from still images). I would be happy to demonstrate this for you, if you're interested.

​I totally disagree because of the following. It's been widely speculated that IBIS itself causes poor quality for two reasons: 1. In order to allow the sensor to move so freely and quickly with IBIS, you have to eliminate a lot of the heat sinking around the sensor that dissipates the heat. When heat builds up around the sensor, it creates noise and a lot of other nasty effects that can destroy video quality. The reason this may not show up (as much) in stills is because you don't need to have the sensor active as long for stills as you do for video. Panasonic's GH series is basically a heat sink machine. A lot of the size of those cameras is devoted to heat dissipation. And Panasonic execs have bluntly stated they have no intention of ever putting IBIS in their high end cameras, the GH series. 2. But lack of heat sinking is not the only issue. When IBIS is actually active in video mode, it creates even more heat. So, you've got this one-two punch creating excess heat. Now, it may be possible that this is not the reason Oly stinks at video, and they just lack experience. I don't know. But, if we continue to oversell the benefits of IBIS at the expense of video quality and the typical consumer buys into that, then what's going to happen with Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, etc.? What are they going to focus on in the future, IBIS or actually delivering what we need, video quality? Well, if Olympus is selling a boat load of cameras with IBIS precisely for video reasons, and IBIS does in fact destroy video quality, then we're in for a complete regression in all the advances we've made in video quality. As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to bash away. I want this to fail because I don't want IBIS to start trumping video quality. Sure, it would be nice to have both video quality and IBIS, but I won't really settle for anything less than what Panasonic is offering. I want to see continued improvement. If Olympus actually ups the video quality (enough for Andrew to recommend them) but still not up to GH2 quality, I'm going to be very disappointed (and possibly start stocking up on cameras while they don't suck for video). But at this point, it's just completely unacceptable from a video quality standpoint. I'm not sure how else to say it. And I feel that the root cause of this whole situation is people continuing to overlook the glaring deficiencies in Oly's cameras for videos because they're enamored with the stabilization. And giving unwarranted praise for the camera due to the IBIS without mentioning the totally lacking video quality. End rant.